IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Re: udhcpd Win98 interoperability

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 22 August 2002 17:14 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03330 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7MHFo604826 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:15:50 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHFoo04823 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:15:50 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03310; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:14:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHCZo04654; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:12:35 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MHBFo04606 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:11:15 -0400
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02991 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:09:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.6/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g7MH88v08265; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:08:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from tongpanyi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.12.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g7MHB5H5000386; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:11:05 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:11:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: udhcpd Win98 interoperability
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Christoph Stueckjuergen <cstueckjuergen@web.de>
To: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@asu.edu>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <1029969525.18027.131.camel@timmy>
Message-Id: <2442C638-B5F2-11D6-B903-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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)'.

No, if you do that, then DHCP clients will never get new addresses when 
they move to new networks where the DHCP server doesn't know them.   The 
purpose of the "no record" clause is to prevent the DHCP server from NAKing 
simply because the DHCP client has an IP address that the server doesn't 
know about, but that is on the correct network.   I.e., to allow two DHCP 
servers to serve the same network.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email