Talk:Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
Client ID is starting to replace MAC address
And this article is still assuming that the client is presenting a MAC address. I've pushed in some qualifications, but haven't provided any RFC's or references.
Most of the documentation on the web still assumes that clients will be presenting either EUI-48 or EUI-64 identifiers, but that's no longer the case: current Linux distributions (including Ubuntu) are presenting to DHCP machine ID's that do not include hardware-level identifiers at all.
The reason described for this change is that a machine with wired and wireless connections should by default present and acquire the same identification on both channels. This is not true if the hardware-level id's are bound to application-level ids, which happens if hardware-level id's are bound to IP address.
I notice that a comment about this was made on the talk page in 2007, so the technology is not new, but it's becoming more widespread — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
DHCPACK destination address
The example DHCPACK message lists 192.168.1.100 as its destination address in the IP section which contradicts teaching literature (Kurose & Ross: Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach, where DHCP ACK is still being broadcasted) and seems to be at odds with RFC2131, Section 3.2.3. The example might still be correct, but if so an explanation why the offered IP address may already be used would be helpful.
Paul4096 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hard to read sentence in section "DHCP relaying"
The following sentence is really hard to read:
In this case, a DHCP client that has not yet acquired an IP address cannot communicate directly with the DHCP server using IP routing, because it does not have a routable IP address, does not know the link layer address of a router and does not know the IP address of the DHCP server.
93.104.239.68 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
History
What's the history of the protocol? I came here to look that up specifically - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Computing articles
- High-importance Computing articles
- C-Class Computer networking articles
- High-importance Computer networking articles
- C-Class Computer networking articles of High-importance
- All Computer networking articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class Internet articles
- High-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles