On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:39:06 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Camaleón wrote: >> Niklas Jakobsson wrote: >> > I found this post to the dhcp-users mailing list: >> > https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2011-July/013440.html >> >> W-o-w... that's incredible. >> So it is not working even in the upstream dhcpd? :-o > > It may be unintuitive but ignoring client identifier is incorrect. That > is why patching to do so isn't accepted upstream. Ignoring client > identifier violates the protocol. See RFC 2131.
Yes, I guess that's what man page also warns about, so what's the point in adding a setting that in the end cannot be honored? :-? *** The duplicates flag tells the DHCP server that if a request is received from a client that matches the MAC address of a host declaration, any other leases matching that MAC address should be discarded by the server, even if the UID is not the same. This is a violation of the DHCP protocol, but can prevent clients whose client identifiers change regularly from holding many leases at the same time. By default, duplicates are allowed. *** I mean, the patch is aimed to solve something that is currently there but is not working or did I miss something? > Now that doesn't mean that in restricted cases it isn't beneficial to > violate some protocols. I violate protocols! (I want that tshirt by > the way. :-) Maybe at "thinkgeek.com"? ;-) > Expecially when it suits me. But it does prevent it from > being general purpose and certainly should not be the default. If I read the man page correctly, it certainly is not the default but the option is available for specific sitations. > A typical suggestion for people provisioning a large number of systems > would be to identify PXE clients using vendor-class-identifier and > assign those a short lease time so that those addresses expire quickly > to keep from depleting the pool. I agree there has to be a better/another way to get the job done. >> > It adds a new option ignore-client-uids to dhcpd. I applied the patch >> > and recompiled my dhcp-server and it works exactly as intended. >> > >> > So, my problem is solved... >> >> Good to know, and thanks for posting the above URI and confirming the >> patch works. What scares me is to see no replies to the user who posted >> the message on the dhcpd mailing list... > > Search for Yedidyah Bar-David (aka Didi) single lease dhcp patch and you > should get to various discussions going back several years. This isn't > a new topic. It comes up periodically concerning booting multiple > different operating systems and having each system assigned its own > address. Hum... I was not aware this was part of that well-know-discussed issues, but regardless its "awareness status", is something that should addressed at dhcp mailing list. I think is a valid concern for users and they deserve a proper response, whatever it be. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.29.20.16...@gmail.com
