Re: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 03 February 2004 17:48 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20942 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:48:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao4e9-0006Ea-Hh for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:47:37 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13HlbBt023957 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:47:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao4e9-0006EK-Bl for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:47:37 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20909 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao4e7-0005rJ-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:47:35 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao4dA-0005lj-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:46:36 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao4cd-0005gN-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:46:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao4cb-00065F-HL; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:46:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao4c7-00063U-T5 for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:45:31 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20780 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:45:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao4c6-0005eV-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:45:30 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao4bA-0005YZ-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:44:33 -0500
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao4aJ-0005SJ-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:43:39 -0500
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (dsl093-187-232.chi2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.187.232]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180B41C15E2; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:33:44 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <PPEKLDPHBHOIHMHKFGLLIEEDCOAA.kevin.noll@perfectorder.com>
References: <PPEKLDPHBHOIHMHKFGLLIEEDCOAA.kevin.noll@perfectorder.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <7DE4F508-5670-11D8-9DEF-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "Kostur, Andre" <Andre@incognito.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:43:35 -0600
To: "Kevin A. Noll" <kevin.noll@perfectorder.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612)
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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Feb 3, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Kevin A. Noll wrote: > Seems to me that the client should drop the ACK (like Ted suggests), > or send a > DHCPDECLINE. I just don't see any recommendation for this. It's a completely inappropriate packet. Sending a DHCPDECLINE in this case would be a very bad idea, because if it is a DoS attack, now the client is helping out, and might be able to squeak by a filter that would have prevented a direct attack on the server. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK Kostur, Andre
- RE: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK Kevin A. Noll
- RE: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK Kostur, Andre
- RE: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK Kevin A. Noll
- RE: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK Kostur, Andre
- Re: [dhcwg] Options differing in OFFER and ACK Ted Lemon