[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: PATCH: udhcpd "option domain" multiple values
From:       "Jason Schoon" <floydpink () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-01-30 20:58:50
Message-ID: 78a54e1b0701301258k5e2446fdi90a4c69bb7e4d0e7 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On 1/30/07, Gabriel L. Somlo <somlo@cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 09:06:14PM -0600, Jason Schoon wrote:
> > Great idea, but if you need this functionality you should add support to
> > udhcp for option 119, specified in RFC3397.  This is the exact problem
> that
> > was solved by that new option.
>
> And what to do about all the (pre isc 3.1.0) clients that just dump the
> content of option 15 into the search string ? :)
>
> Cheers,
> Gabriel
>


They still will.  Or they will disregard the option entirely.  They will not
have your patch, so they will not be expecting to receive multiple strings
in a single field.  They will be expecting this field to contain a single
domain value.

I agree, it sucks that the initial implementation didn't consider this, but
that's the exact problem that caused Stuart Cheshire to propose this new
option to DHCP.

A similar problem is coming to a head regarding receiving time zone offsets
via DHCP...

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

On 1/30/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Gabriel L. Somlo</b> &lt;<a \
href="mailto:somlo@cmu.edu">somlo@cmu.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span \
class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px \
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Mon, Jan \
29, 2007 at 09:06:14PM -0600, Jason Schoon wrote:<br>&gt; Great idea, but if you need \
this functionality you should add support to<br>&gt; udhcp for option 119, specified \
in RFC3397.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is the exact problem that <br>&gt; was solved by that new \
option.<br><br>And what to do about all the (pre isc 3.1.0) clients that just dump \
the<br>content of option 15 into the search string ? \
:)<br><br>Cheers,<br>Gabriel<br></blockquote></div><br> <br>They still will.&nbsp; Or \
they will disregard the option entirely.&nbsp; They will not have your patch, so they \
will not be expecting to receive multiple strings in a single field.&nbsp; They will \
be expecting this field to contain a single domain value. <br><br>I agree, it sucks \
that the initial implementation didn&#39;t consider this, but that&#39;s the exact \
problem that caused Stuart Cheshire to propose this new option to DHCP.<br><br>A \
similar problem is coming to a head regarding receiving time zone offsets via DHCP... \
<br>



_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]