Re: [dhcwg] doubt in rfc 3046

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 04 September 2001 13:23 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14644; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:23:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA24230; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA24210 for <>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:20:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14378 for <>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f84DEbf24790; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 06:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f84DKFH00427; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] doubt in rfc 3046
In-Reply-To: Message from AJAY BANSAL <> of "Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:27:42 +0530." <>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 09:20:15 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>

> In a client's dhcp request, which a DHCP server
> recieves, can both,
> the 'client id' option as well as the 'remote
> client id'
> (relay agent sub-option)  be present?

The DHCP client never sends a relay agent information option.   So if
you are implementing a client, the answer to your question is "no,
never."   If you are implementing a relay agent, it's "yes," but the
remote-id is intended to refer to a remote link, not to an individual
client.   The client-id and remote-id fields are completely

> If yes, then will there be any significance of
> client id field in such cases,
> since client is not a trustworthy component?

The client isn't trustworthy, but hopefully the relay agent is.   The
client id identifies the client, so you just have to trust that the
client is telling the truth.

> Is it must for the server to copy the client id
> back in its reply?

I don't think so, but you should refer to the RFC to be sure.


dhcwg mailing list