[dhcwg] Re: Re: Re: udhcpd Win98 interoperability

Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@asu.edu> schrieb am 22.08.02 20:24:34: 
> > > if (wrong net) {  
> > >  should nak;  
> > > } else {  
> > >  if (!ok ip) {  
> > >   should nak;  
> > >  }  
> > > }  
> > >   
> > > but then the "If the DHCP server has no record of this client" clause is  
> > > thrown in. At what stage of the block does this go in? I would say this  
> > > clause would go *before* 'if (wrong net)'.  
> > >   
> > > I'll cc this to the Dynamic Host Configuration working group. Hopefully  
> > > they'll have some answers.  
> > >   
> >   
> > I would replace (!ok ip) by (requested ip is ours but is no longer/has never been  
> > assigned to the requesting client). Then the conditions (wrong net) and (requested 
ip  
> > is ours but...) are mutually exclusive.  
> >   
> > So my parsing of the RFC would look loke that:  
> >   
> > if (wrong net) {  
> >   should nak;  
> > } else if (requested ip is ours but...) {  
> >   should nak;  
> > } else {  
> >   remain silent;  
> > }  
>  
> define 'ours' a little better, do you mean if there is a static mapping 
> for the address that we take care of? 
>  

OK, I would say the requested address should be NAKed if 
- we have static mapping for it on another client 
- it is already assigned to one of our other clients 
- it was assigned to the requesting client, but the lease has already timed out 

Do you think this is reasonable? 

______________________________________________________________________________
WEB.DE MyPage - Ultimatives Kommunikationstool! Ihre Message sofort
online! Domain aenderbar! http://www.das.ist.aber.ne.lustige.sache.ms/

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg