[BusyBox] udhcpc and ARP?

[tom at ceisystems.com]

Hello all,

Well, when reading the DHCP RFCs, they are explicit about the definition
of the word SHOULD.  In fact, they state:

	"...there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
	 ignore this item, but the full implications should be
understood
	 and the case carefully weighed before choosing a different
course"

So, my question is this.  What, exactly, are we gaining by -_not_ arping
for the assigned values?  What case has been made for the exclusion of
this feature, and what were the the cases being made for it's inclusion?
Personally, I don't think code _size_ would be prohibitive, and an ARP
generating function seems fairly straight-forward, as we have the exact
values we are looking for on the network.

Thomas Cameron
CEI Systems


-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Dill [mailto:Russ.Dill at asu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:50 PM
To: Steven Scholz
Cc: Busybox
Subject: Re: [BusyBox] udhcpc and ARP?


On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 03:54, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> the RFC2131 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2131.html) states
> 
>    5. The client receives the DHCPACK message with configuration
>       parameters.  The client SHOULD perform a final check on the
>       parameters (e.g., ARP for allocated network address)...
> 
> Is it correct that UDHCPC does _not_ perform such a "final check" 
> using ARP?
> 
> I can't see any ARP request after an IP is assigned to my device!

nope, it doesn't, key word here being should.

-- 
Russ Dill <Russ.Dill at asu.edu>

_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox at mail.busybox.net http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox