Subject: [dhcwg] Another RFC 2131/2132 issue?

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:38:25 -0400

Seems like, somewhere in "Implementation Issues with RFC 2131, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)" <draft-ietf-dhc-implementation-02.txt>,
there ought to be a discussion of...

What is the client behavior when options in a DHCPACK received during lease
renewal carry different values from those currently stored by the client
from the previous DHCPACK?

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:30:33 -0700

> from the previous DHCPACK?
Yup, we've talked about this before.   I think the consensus at this 
point is that the client should use the new parameters.   Definitely 
something that needs to be added if we do an RFC2131/2132 reissue.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:35:35 -0400

Barr, Rob - I took a cursory look through
<draft-ietf-dhc-implementation-02.txt> and didn't see this specific issue;
if it's not already on the list of topics to be discussed, please add it.
Thanks...

- Ralph

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:58:23 -0700

> something that needs to be added if we do an RFC2131/2132 reissue.

To a certain extent, this can't be helped.  Some applications
consume the configuration value when they start running, and need
to be restarted to fetch the new value from the system.

-- 
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP.  Email [email-masked].
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.	-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg