Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 05 March 2002 13:43 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28948 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:43:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA03891 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:43:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03774; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:41:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03745 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:41:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28904 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:41:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-128.cisco.com [161.44.149.128]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA08216; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:41:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305082927.00b6c0d8@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:33:18 -0500
To: Burcak Beser <burcak@juniper.net>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020228121913.02444df0@goblet.cisco.com>
References: <5B671CEC7A3CDA40BA4A8B081D7B046CFD7824@antiproton.jnpr.net >
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
I agree with Kim and Ted - DHCPDECLINE is defined in RFC2131 to be used in the case of an address conflict, and many DHCP servers will mark the address in a DHCPDECLINE so that it is not offered again in the future. If the client decides that the address or other parameters in a DHCPACK are not acceptable, the client should respond with a DHCPRELEASE and then restart the address assignment process with a DHCPDISCOVER. - Ralph At 12:26 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, Kim Kinnear wrote: >At 06:04 PM 2/27/2002, Burcak Beser wrote: > >I have a question regarding the use of DHCP_DECLINE message. If the > client is choosing a valid DHCP_OFFER using contents of the returned > options, and the DHCP SERVER changes the contents of the options while > sending the DHCP_ACK message, is it acceptable for client to use > DHCP_DECLINE? (The RFC 2131 states that DHCP_DECLINE is issued when the > IP address in use.) > > No, it is not. See below. > > > >In other words when a DHCP_DECLINE is received by the DHCP SERVER does > this mean that the client detected that the IP address is already used by > another entity? > > Yes, and the implication (as well as the explicit > direction) is that the DHCP server should not offer this > IP address to this client or any other client for at > least some time since it has been shown to be "unusable" > for DHCP client allocation (because some client (or > machine, maybe not a DHCP client) appears to be using it). > > From RFC2131.txt: > >4.3.3 DHCPDECLINE message > > If the server receives a DHCPDECLINE message, the client has > discovered through some other means that the suggested network > address is already in use. The server MUST mark the network address > as not available and SHOULD notify the local system administrator of > a possible configuration problem. > > > If you don't like the IP address, you could use a > DHCPRELEASE to give it back. Of course, you may in that > case be offered it next time, but you don't need to take > the offer. > > If you just want to give it back, use DHCPRELEASE. > > If you want to give it back and be offered a different IP > address from this server, that's a harder question, since > the DHCPDECLINE implies that the address isn't usable. > > Cheers -- Kim > > > > > > >-burcak > > > >_______________________________________________ > >dhcwg mailing list > >dhcwg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > >_______________________________________________ >dhcwg mailing list >dhcwg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Burcak Beser
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Steve Gonczi
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Kim Kinnear
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Kostur, Andre
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Richard Barr Hibbs
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Richard Barr Hibbs
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Richard Barr Hibbs
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Thirumalesh Bhat
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Richard Barr Hibbs
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Richard Barr Hibbs
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Burcak Beser
- RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question Ralph Droms