problem with relay agent implementation

[Prashanth Penumarthy]

I forgot to mention in the previous post --- I see the following log on the
server side...
BOOTREQUEST from 30:38:30:30:36:39 via 10.11.61.126: BOOTP from dynamic
client and no dynamic leases



On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Prashanth Penumarthy <
prashanth.penumarthy at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have attached the files, for privacy policies am attaching only the
> screen shot of the captures.
>
> my_relay_disc_cap.png -------- capture of packets on my implementation
> true_relay_disc_cap.png ---------- screen shot of the capture that works
> correctly
>
> thanks,
>
> prashanth
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Joerg Mayer <jmayer at loplof.de> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:06:16AM -0700, Prashanth Penumarthy wrote:
> > > I am trying to implement a DHCP relay agent - not full blown at this
> > time
> > > but more of a functional test tool. Am forwarding the discover packets
> > to
> > > the server but for some reason the server is not reading the magic
> > cookie,
> > > dhcp message type option (discover) and  treating the packet as sent
> > by a
> > > bootp client (boot request) and not as a dhcp discover packet. I
> > compared
> > > the packet captures with some valid dhcp discover packet captures
> > (both
> > > through relay agent and without) and the way I am sending the magic
> > cookie
> > > and the dhcp discover options is similar to the other captures. Should
> > I set
> > > any parameters in the dhcpd.conf file to make the server interpret the
> > > cookie and dhcp options correctly? Also what are the mandatory dhcp
> > options
> > > for a discover packet? any pointers would be helpful ------------
> >
> > Without having a capture packet this is like looking into a crystal
> > ball:
> > Guesswork. One of the things that might be wrong is the wrong source
> > port
> > or a missing giaddr.
> >
> >  Ciao
> >      Joerg
> > --
> > Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer at loplof.de>
> > We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
> > works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
> >
> >
>