> I'm afraid I just don't get it. From an administrator's point of
> view, what's more obvious about (say) the subnet mask versus a print
> server address? Aren't they configured in roughly the same way as far
> as the protocol is concerned?
>
> I don't get why an administrator would or should expect that DHCP
> shuts itself down when some server-supplied parameters are overridden,
> but doesn't do so when others are overridden.
>
> You've given a definition -- ones that the client configures -- that
> depends on the implementation of the client. Is there a definition
> that doesn't depend on the implementation?
I don't see this as an implementation detail -- it's critical for
e.g. folks using dhcpinfo, which is why we document it in dhcpagent(1M):
DHCP also acts as a mechanism to configure other information
needed by the client, for example, the domain name and
addresses of routers. Aside from the IP address, and for
IPv4 alone, the netmask, broadcast address, and default
router, the agent does not directly configure the worksta-
tion, but instead acts as a database which may be interro-
gated by other programs, and in particular by dhcpinfo(1).
Again, I think the default router thing is a bug -- though perhaps
unfixable at this point.
> > > There's an argument (albeit a weak one, I think) to be made that the
> > > IP address is "special" because it's associated with a lease, unlike
> > > all the other parameters, and thus touching that value has "special"
> > > consequences. Maybe.
> >
> > Yes, that's basically my argument.
>
> Is the mask part of the lease?
Yes.
--
meem
