3 ms·

Proprietary in the computer sense is generally taken to mean closed source or at least not made available to competitors or others. There's nothing to stop any

Proprietary in the computer sense is generally taken to mean closed source or at least not made available to competitors or others. There's nothing to stop any other systems offering this kind of quick start DHCP service.

th0ma5 15y ago
Except that it violates the specification right? I guess we're agreeing to disagree on the definition of proprietary. I can buy all of Apple's funky connectors through various suppliers, and maybe even fab them myself, but to me they're still proprietary. Sorry to be pedantic!
- __david__ 15y ago
  Which specification does it violate?
  - th0ma5 15y ago
    rfc 2131? seems to say the client can ask for an unlimited lease, but the server can specify a finite one. this article seems to be saying that this thing will use the last one leased no matter how long it's been off the network
    - bradleyland 15y ago
      The DHCP client acts as expected. The behavior observed by the post author occurs before DHCP negotiation executes. I know this seems like a technicality, but it's the truth. The sniffing and assumed use of an IP address occurs outside the DHCP request/response cycle. It's used ahead of time, and discarded if the DHCP 'request' request is denied. The only people bent about this are people who have any idea what's going on behind the scenes. In the rare cases where this is a problem, the issue is quickly resolved. If this were a "real" problem, we'd have seen a lot more issues by now. The Apple discussion boards would be lit up with complaints. They're not. This is a non-issue. Only pedants are stuck on the fact that there's no RFC for it.
      - th0ma5 15y ago
        hrmmm! good point, i assume too much, and i guess i assumed in the cadence of 802.11 whatever, dhcp comes next because it always does, but it never has to! and apparently not here for a moment. thanks for coming back to post this.
      - simmons 15y ago
        And as several people have pointed out to me, it looks like there is indeed an RFC for it: RFC 4436, Detecting Network Attachment in IPv4 (DNAv4).

th0ma5 15y ago

Except that it violates the specification right? I guess we're agreeing to disagree on the definition of proprietary. I can buy all of Apple's funky connectors through various suppliers, and maybe even fab them myself, but to me they're still proprietary. Sorry to be pedantic!

__david__ 15y ago
Which specification does it violate?
- th0ma5 15y ago
  rfc 2131? seems to say the client can ask for an unlimited lease, but the server can specify a finite one. this article seems to be saying that this thing will use the last one leased no matter how long it's been off the network
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    The DHCP client acts as expected. The behavior observed by the post author occurs before DHCP negotiation executes. I know this seems like a technicality, but it's the truth. The sniffing and assumed use of an IP address occurs outside the DHCP request/response cycle. It's used ahead of time, and discarded if the DHCP 'request' request is denied. The only people bent about this are people who have any idea what's going on behind the scenes. In the rare cases where this is a problem, the issue is quickly resolved. If this were a "real" problem, we'd have seen a lot more issues by now. The Apple discussion boards would be lit up with complaints. They're not. This is a non-issue. Only pedants are stuck on the fact that there's no RFC for it.
    - th0ma5 15y ago
      hrmmm! good point, i assume too much, and i guess i assumed in the cadence of 802.11 whatever, dhcp comes next because it always does, but it never has to! and apparently not here for a moment. thanks for coming back to post this.
    - simmons 15y ago
      And as several people have pointed out to me, it looks like there is indeed an RFC for it: RFC 4436, Detecting Network Attachment in IPv4 (DNAv4).