Subject: Re: dhcpd(8) _cannot_ be completely disabled on an interface
To: Chris Jones <email@example.com>
From: Chris Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/07/2002 16:11:59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 04:10:31PM -0700, Chris Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:49:53PM -0800, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> > > Sometimes, the DHCPOFFER message needs to be sent broadcast back to
> > > the client. In other words, the dest IP address is 0xffffffff, and
> > > the dest MAC address is the client's. I don't think you can do this
> > > with UDP.
> > I'd challenge you to quote the text in RFC 2131 which requires this.
> > This is such a huge layering and semantic violation that I don't think
> > anyone would even dare to write it down, let alone have it remain in
> > the document all the way to draft standard status, even if it could
> > otherwise be widely implemented.
Hmm. I see; you're asserting that the message should either be
unicast to both MAC and IP addresses, or it should be broadcast to
both. (Please excuse the sloppy terminology.) That certainly makes
sense, and I haven't read the RFC closely enough to have an opinion
either way on that.
Chris Jones Mad scientist at large
www.netbsd.org www.postgresql.org www.schemers.org www.python.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----