DHCP separation can be nice, but it has also its downsides.

It's definitely a nice choice because it makes programs a bit smaller. 
However, a problem might appear in the (unlikely?) situation where a 
user plays with a network-enabled program while his lease expires.

Say, my DHCP router provides leases of 1h. Then I run the MTCP FTP 
program and move files back and forth on various servers for a long time 
- after 1h my lease expires, and depending on the implementation of the 
local DHCP server, havoc may start if it attributes "my" IP to another 
client. This is of course an extremal case, since usually DHCP servers 
provide longer leases, but who knows.

DHCP clients are supposed to renew their IP as soon as their lease 
expire - or sooner (many times they do it halfway). Using an external 
DHCP process makes this impossible (unless written as a TSR, which is 
not the case here, and would probably end up being a memory hog anyway).

But for any "reasonable" use, an external DHCP tool is very fine, yes. 
Just wanted to provide a 'full' picture on the subject :)


On 09/01/2014 08:30 PM, Michael Brutman wrote:
> I don't want to brag too much, but M2WAT shows the absolute brilliance
> of separating the DHCP process from the programs.  ;-0 The mTCP programs
> do not know or care about DHCP; they behave the same whether they have a
> static IP address or a DHCP obtained one.  M2WAT helps the WATTCP
> programs behave the same way; they can run as though they are on a fixed
> address and only M2WAT knows the difference.
> If David does not mind I would provide a link to M2WAT or even host a
> self-contained ZIP of the source code and executable on my mTCP home
> page.  But I don't think I am going to put it in with the other mTCP
> programs; those are pretty much 100% my authorship and I don't want to
> mix things in.
> For FreeDOS the installer can place M2WAT wherever it makes the most sense.
> Mike

Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to