Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!Portia!Jessica!morgan
From: morgan@Jessica.stanford.edu (RL "Bob" Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: BOOTP Extensions
Message-ID: <3875@Portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Oct 88 02:48:34 GMT
References: <8810032003.AA00478@braden.isi.edu> <YXGImpy00UoJ87BZYa@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@Portia.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: morgan@Jessica.stanford.edu (RL "Bob" Morgan)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 27


Drew Perkins writes:

> It seems that quite a few people have implemented [BootP extensions]
> or will be soon.  I can think of at least two vendors with RFC 1048
> compliant clients, and I remember hearing from a few others.

Which vendors?

> We (CMU) have a functional RFC 1048 BOOTP server that we will be
> distributing very soon.  We are currently adding truly dynamic IP
> address assignment similar in concept to what MACs use.

Hmm.  I've been thinking a lot about dynamic address assignment
myself.  I'd be curious to hear how (or if) you handle

1) ARP caches in hosts and gateways, as BootP clients cycle through
dynamically assigned addresses;

2) redundancy (that is, can you have a backup dynamic address server?);

3) multiple subnet service (that is, is the server restricted to
providing service to clients on its own subnet?).

 - RL "Bob" Morgan
   Networking Systems
   Stanford