Re: [dhcwg] Can a DHCPv4 server REPLY to non-standard port.

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 04 February 2003 20:37 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 PAA03692 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:37:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h14KhXn22212 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:43:33 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14KhWJ22209 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:43:32 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03675 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:37:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14KfQJ22160; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:41:26 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14KebJ22115 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:40:37 -0500
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03582 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:34:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nominum.com (dsl093-187-100.chi2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.187.100]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.6/8.6.11) with ESMTP id h14KUTP07792; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:30:29 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:37:01 -0600
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Can a DHCPv4 server REPLY to non-standard port.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
Cc: "Vasu, Vallabhaneni" <vasu@austin.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org, Senthil Kumar B <ksenthil@india.hp.com>
To: Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200302041606.27750.budm@weird-solutions.com>
Message-Id: <6A0683BE-3880-11D7-A2AE-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
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

> We respond to the source port the client is using, but allow the 
> administrator
> to override this at the server. It seemed like a bad idea to respond 
> to a
> fixed port if no communication had been initiated from that port.

The RFC is explicit about the port numbers to use when sending 
messages.   If you send to or from other ports, you are not doing DHCP. 
   Which is not to say that what you are doing is wrong for the 
particular case you're working on, but it isn't what's stated in the 
protocol specification.   You can't count on being able to interoperate 
successfully with conforming devices if you don't use the port numbers 
that the standard requires.

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