On Wed, Feb 04, 1998 at 11:44:04PM -0800, MegaZone wrote:
> Ok, all this DHCP stuff got me to stay late (arg, and I have to do another
> training class in the morning) and I looked at the other customers I knew
> of, what was being attempted here, and what we do. I was lucky enough to
> catch one of the other engineers on it too.
>
> Short answer - WE WILL NOT PROXY DHCP COMING IN FROM THE ETHERNET.
>
> The way the proxy was implemented it was in response to server requests
> we had to handle DHCP requests coming in over the external links. So
> the code only handles proxy requests that come in over a Point-To-Point
> interface.
>
> Part of the misunderstanding is my fault. I worked with people using
> PMs at remote sites handling DHCP over a WAN link back to a server. But
> the clients making the requests were NOT on the ether, but on the serial
> ports. When I saw the latest request in my mind's eye I mis-remembered
> what had worked as what was being tried. Which is why I couldn't
> understand why it wasn't working in this case.
>
> Being able to handle proxy requests from the ethernet is a more complex
> propisition. We talked about it and looked at the code, and to be safe
> we need to do some kind of 'split-horizon'. So that we don't resend a
> request out of the same interface we got it in on.
>
> We'd have to get the request, determine which interface it came in on,
> find our route to the proxy host, and then resend it only if the route
> wasn't on the same interface. If it was the same we'd have to drop it.
>
> None of that intelligence is there now, we just get it and pass it on
> since a PTP link isn't a broadcast medium like ether, where it would be
> likely to have a server on the ether in many cases.
>
> So the answer is - I'm sorry, I half-remembered what was being done.
> What you are trying to do with two units and proxying requests from the
> ethernet will NOT work today. And it won't be a short term fix, so I
> can't promise that it will be in 3.8. In fact, as 3.8 is well along,
> most likely it will not be in that release.
>
> But we are doing further DHCP work in relation to the NAT code, and we
> may be able to tag this on to that project.
>
> Sorry for the confusion and frustration.
>
> -MZ
> --
> Lucent Remote Access Division - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
> Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com
> For support requests: support@livingston.com <http://www.livingston.com/>
> Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
-- - Steve - Systems Manager - Community Internet Access, Inc. - Gallup and Grants, New Mexico - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.