filename in BOOTP reply vs RFC 951 -- ignore the previous message please

[Eduardo Fleury]

I agree, that behavior would be better and more "correct" but I'm afraid
that current code doesn't provide that functionality.
My understanding is that the current design only allows each client to have
only one filename associated, if I'm wrong please correct me, if I'm right
then we either reply always the same thing or trust the client.

Note that trusting the client in this case should not be a security concern
as we wouldn't be letting any kind of information leakage, we simply leave
the filename untouched.

On 8/10/07, Bruce Hudson <Bruce.Hudson at dal.ca> wrote:
>
> > Since the list is kind of active today, I was wondering if anyone has
> any
> > thoughts about that BOOTP issue I mentioned a couple weeks ago.
>
>     It should be possible to get the behaviour you are looking for by
> using an if statement in the configuration file, without having to
> modify the source. That would be closer to the spirit of "used as a
> lookup key in a database, along with the client's IP address" and it
> avoids having a client over-ride the central config.
>
>     The following is completely untested but should at least point you
> in the right direction.
>
>         group {
>             if filename = "stage2" {
>                 next-server stage2-tftp-server;
>                 filename "stage2";
>             } elsif filename = "stage3" {
>                 next-server stage3-tftp-server;
>                 filename "stage3";
>             } else {
>                 next-server stage1-tftp-server;
>                 filename "stage1";
>             }
>
>             host {
>                 ...
>             }
>         }
> --
> Bruce A. Hudson                         | Bruce.Hudson at Dal.CA
> UCIS, Networks and Systems              |
> Dalhousie University                    |
> Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada            | (902) 494-3405
>
>