Update documentation: options concatenation is now supported.
This commit is contained in:
parent
13f5ab56e2
commit
916ddf10e5
19
README
19
README
@ -31,14 +31,10 @@ the ability to service multiple client requests simultaneously; a single ifchd
|
||||
is sufficient for multiple ndhc clients. Only exotic setups should require
|
||||
this functionality, but it does exist.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that ndhc does not support the entire DHCP client protocol. Notably, DHCP
|
||||
options concatenation and IPv4 Link Local Addressing as defined in RFC3927 are
|
||||
not and will not be supported.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, ndhc fully implements RFC5227's address conflict detection
|
||||
and defense. Great care is taken to ensure that address conflicts will be
|
||||
detected, and ndhc also has extensive support for address defense. Care is
|
||||
taken to prevent unintentional ARP flooding under any circumstance.
|
||||
ndhc fully implements RFC5227's address conflict detection and defense. Great
|
||||
care is taken to ensure that address conflicts will be detected, and ndhc also
|
||||
has extensive support for address defense. Care is taken to prevent
|
||||
unintentional ARP flooding under any circumstance.
|
||||
|
||||
ndhc also monitors hardware link status via netlink events and reacts
|
||||
appropriately when interface carrier status changes or an interface is
|
||||
@ -46,6 +42,9 @@ explicitly deconfigured. This functionality can be useful on wired networks
|
||||
when transient carrier downtimes occur (or cables are changed), but it is
|
||||
particularly useful on wireless networks.
|
||||
|
||||
RFC3927's IPv4 Link Local Addressing is not supported. I have found v4 LLAs
|
||||
to be more of an annoyance than a help. v6 LLAs work much better in practice.
|
||||
|
||||
FEATURES
|
||||
--------
|
||||
|
||||
@ -308,10 +307,6 @@ Then in the file and sname fields:
|
||||
'DHCP-OPTION-OVERLOAD:3'
|
||||
I suspect some bad dhcp programs will hang given this input.
|
||||
|
||||
Options concatenation is a minefield of poor specification. There's a
|
||||
follow-up RFC to make proper behavior somewhat more defined, but it's still
|
||||
overly complex.
|
||||
|
||||
DHCP explicitly specifies that there is no minimum lease time and also
|
||||
specifies that the minimum default rebinding time is leasetime*0.875 and
|
||||
the minimum default renewing time is leasetime*0.500. All times are relative
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user