Subject: RE: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-server-override-00.txt

From: "Kostur, Andre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:39:06 -0800

> > In the redundant cases, does this imply that the redundant 
> relays need
> > to pass whatever information it acquires from the DHCP 
> clients to each
> > other through some other proprietary mechanism?
> 
> The point of this option is to ensure that the relays see 
> every message 
> from the client and therefore have an opportunity to insert a relay 
> agent information option into each such message.   I don't 
> know why it 
> would be necessary for the relay agent to remember anything at all 
> about the client, nor do I see any need for a proprietary or standard 
> inter-relay-agent protocol.

Does this change RFC 3046?  

   Consequently, servers SHOULD be prepared to handle relay agent
   options in unicast messages, but MUST NOT expect them to always be
   there.

Given that wording, the DHCP server is required to behave "correctly", 
even if the incoming Request doesn't have option 82 in it, why do we
need an option to force it's existance?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:08:57 -0600

> need an option to force it's existance?

Because it turns out that it's a more reliable way of accomplishing the 
goals of option 82.   Sure, the DHCP server can cache the option 82 
from the most recent broadcast message from the client, but it's less 
likely to be using stale information, and less likely to be spoofed, if 
the server doesn't have to cache this information, but instead gets a 
fresh copy of it each time it gets a message from the client.

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