On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:10:59 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that William Poaster spake thusly:
>
>> Furthermore, as I posted to Linonut, I read in a UK group that some
>> people are having problems with Vista not getting an IP address
>> from their routers or from some non-Microsoft DHCP servers?
>
> In fairness, Microsoft are merely implementing RFC1542:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1542.html (section 3.1.1)
>
> However, they should have a fallback method for DHCP servers that do
> not support the broadcast flag, which is a comparatively new
> feature.
>
> Actually they /do/, but it should be automatic, not something which
> requires users to edit the registry.
They are implementing it wrongly. From the rfc:
DISCUSSION:
This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
this mechanism is discouraged.
If vista defaults to setting the broadcast bit then they have not
understood the purpose of the flag. Any fallback should be to set the
broadcast bit when no IP address is received when configured for
unicast replies. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be, lets flood
subnets with broadcasts whenever possible (not just boot[ps]).
|
|
