RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Thu, 07 March 2002 15:28 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 KAA00116 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA01927 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:28:09 -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 KAA01635; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:24:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA01604 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:24:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29766 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:23:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([63.193.193.26]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSM00CEZ040NK@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 07:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 07:23:34 -0800
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20020306215847.037abc20@funnel.cisco.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Reply-to: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
Message-id: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNAEAKDLAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 19:00

<*Snip!*>

> >...I agree that a client should not arbitrarily change it's
> >mind about a lease, just observing that we don't seem to have
> >fully specified all of the cases, and trying to shine a little
> >daylight on one or two....
>
> Yup, that's what I'm trying to get out of this conversation, too.
>

...I think that while it is clear about the use of DHCPDECLINE to reject an
address that the client believes is already in use, the wording of the RFC
says nothing at all about other [mis-]uses of DHCPDECLINE, nor about other
conditions that might cause a client to decide very late in the message
exchange that it does not want to continue with the offered [and requested!]
address.

For example, what will happen if a client, happily using an address for a
long time, reaches a renew point and issues a gratuitous ARP after receiving
an ack for its lease:  if an address conflict is detected, it could send a
decline message and be completely within spec, but will all servers handle
the decline message properly at this point in the lease lifetime?  What
about a client that periodically ARP's for its address without a protocol
event to trigger it?  Would a server properly handle a decline then?
Stateless servers probably will have no trouble with such behavior, but will
stateful?

--Barr


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