*** From dhcp-server -- To unsubscribe, see the end of this message. ***
> (Here's the real question:) Why doesn't the bundled HP dhcp
> server have this same problem in getting offers accepted by
> the clients?
The stock HP server uses the DLPI interface, last I recall, and
uses that to sending all-ones b'cast to the local wire.
> IOW, the only piece that changed is the dhcp server software,
> and now the local win clients are unable (or are refusing) to
> accept offers.
>
> Would a packet dump of offers from the stock HP dhcp server
> help make it so that ISC dhcp can be installed without
> requiring certain OSes to change their networking config in
> order to get ISC dhcp to work?
Doubtful. The problem is that OS vendors can use undocumented
tricks to get past the all-ones problem. I had to make kernel mods
to TGV's MultiNet DHCP. When you're supplying a 3rd party DHCP
server, kernel mods are out of the question (unless, possibly, it's
an open source OS. But even then, it's a nightmare).
> 2) The README says that it's the "picky windows" clients that
> are causing the problem, but if they are performing to the
> spec (the RFCs), isn't the problem really somewhere else?
> (Please note, I am in no way a MS apologist, but to me it
> looks like the "blame" is misplaced. And if I'm wrong, I
> expect I'll get corrected.)
At the time a lot of DHCP servers were under development, the Internet
Drafts at the time stated "send to the all-ones b'cast, if possible". I
pushed others for this language as the subnet broadcast address is the only
guaranteed way on a socket() based networking stack to get a particular
broadcast packet out a particular interface. I wasn't paying attention,
however, and the final language (I think it changed around ID-6, ID-7)
came back to "send to the all-one's b'cast. This make us non-compliant
and Microsoft compliant again. By the time I noticed this,
the new DHCP RFC's were in last call and in talking with Ralph Droms, it was
decided that I probably couldn't get enough support at that point to change
it back, so I dropped it. If you want to blame someone, blame me - I
should have stood my ground.
Sooooooo, while MS clients are being overly picky and violating the network
programming Prime Directive of "Be conservative in what you send and
liberal in what you accept", it is actually compliant with the RFC. In
that one area. There's plenty of other places where it's completely wrong.
Like refusing to take the hostname given to it from the server (and
filling the event logger on NT with messages about being given a
hostname - chuckle).
Ken Key (formerly of TGV/cisco who spent 3 years implementing DHCP clients
and servers on VMS, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and (shudder) NT/Win95/Win3.1.
And over Token Ring, too... Bleah!).
--
Ken Key ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Network Alchemy, Santa Cruz, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit http://www.fugue.com/dhcp/lists
If you are without web access, or if you are having trouble with the web page,
please send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please try to use the web
page first - it will take a long time for your request to be processed by hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
