Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts that have gone by...

On Aug 3, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> I haven't checked and don't recall, but do you know whether existing 
> clients
> generally include it in the PRL today?

Some do, some don't.   There's special case in the ISC and Nominum DHCP 
servers to override the parameter request list in this case, and the 
code is there because of customer complaints, not because we just 
thought it might be useful.   :')

I think it's a lost cause trying to retrieve things with the FQDN 
option for DHCPv4.   I think we were careful in RFC3315 to specify the 
meaning of the ORO unambiguously, but it might still be nice to mention 
that the mere presence of the FQDN option in the message to the server 
does not override the ORO, and that if the client doesn't list the FQDN 
option in the ORO, it will not get one back from the server.

BTW, it's actually useful in the case of the FQDN option to _not_ 
include it in the ORO - most DHCP clients probably don't _care_ whether 
the server did the update.   They want to tell the server what they'd 
like done, but if the server doesn't do the update, nothing about the 
client's behavior is likely to change.

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