passing values to client: how big?
jhutz at cmu.edu
Tue Jan 13 22:18:09 UTC 2009
--On Tuesday, January 13, 2009 07:52:45 PM +0000 Simon Hobson
<dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> It's bound to be the case - if you make something optional, then there is
> bound to be an implementation that doesn't support it. So large packets
> are bound to be a problem somewhere. But I guess, when the spec was
> written, the packet size was considered to be quite adequate.
It's not just that. The philosophy seems to be that the purpose of DHCP
options is to provide configuration to the client that the client finds
useful. Thus, for example, a server normally only sends options that are
in the PRL. So, a client that needs large amounts of configuration can
advertise support for a larger packet size, and one that doesn't need not
do so, comfortable in the knowledge that the DHCP server is unlikely to
overrun the packet size with options the client doesn't need and didn't
Of course, that ignores the issues David described with relay agents and
confusion over what packet size means.
More information about the dhcp-users