Talk:Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol article.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 365 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Security section - confidentiality added
CONFUSING HERE PLEASE (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Which statement is correct regarding the operation of DHCP?
- A. A DHCP client uses a ping to detect address conflicts.
- B. A DHCP server uses a gratuitous ARP to detect DHCP clients.
- C. A DHCP client uses a gratuitous ARP to detect a DHCP server.
- D. If an address conflict is detected, the address is removed from the pool and an administrator must resolve the conflict.
- E. If an address conflict is detected, the address is removed from the pool for an amount of time configurable by the administrator.
- F. If an address conflict is detected, the address is removed from the pool and will not be reused until the server is rebooted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
about the confidentiality section: "In an ISP context, dhcp logs of address assignments either contain or are links to personally identifying confidential information, the contact details of the client."
What is this even trying to say? Obviously DHCP request (like any other bit of data sent from a customer through his ISP) can be correlated to the customer. Perhaps this quote means that the DHCP packets have identifying information such as hostname/OS in them?
"These are attractive to spammers, and may be sought for "fishing expeditions" by police agencies or litigators."
What is attractive to spammers? What is a fishing expedition?
"At least one implementation mimics the Canadian Library Association policy for book circulation and does not retain identifying information once the "loan" has ended.""
WTF is a loan? A DHCP lease? Or a loan of a book from a library?
Using small talk, vagueness, and tounge in cheek, in an article about a protocol nobody fully understands doesn't help anyone understand it more...
- The previous unsigned edits were made by 188.8.131.52
I think the quote is quite clear in its meaning, that the ISP's DHCP logs would naturally contain a record of the identifier linked to the device the address was linked to, which would be able to be linked back to the customer, but I do agree that the section seems mostly pointless - the first sentence is an okay start but the rest seems to be completely useless.
In addition, does anyone know what this 'one implementation' that deletes the logs once the lease finishes is?
Confusing DHCP generally with the operation of home gateways specifically
User:ImperfectlyInformed recently made some edits that add information about DHCP as it relates to home gateways. These edits are interesting, but are offtopic. It would be helpful to discuss the goal of these edits here, so that we can figure out a way to address the need User:ImperfectlyInformed was trying to address, but without making the article more confusing than it already is (which is to say, considerably). Abhayakara (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- People are going to come to this topic when they are working on their router and see "turn DHCP on". Typically there's not much else about it. If we want readers to understand the topic (which we do), we have to provide context - and there is plenty of context which they will be very familiar with, if it is introduced in non-technical jargon. So we can say that the router acts as a DHCP server and the clients are PCs, and similarly the ISP acts as a DHCP server. These are quite correct and serve to demonstrate the real-world significance of the protocol. Adding a little more: home gateways are clearly not "offtopic". DHCP is a significant part of home networks. Prior to my edits, this article basically did not provide the real-world context and actual effect of DHCP at all. II | (t - c) 04:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the new edits that describe the use of DHCP in a home networking environment confuse the issue. The content is good, but misplaced. It should not be at the very beginning of the article, but in its own subsection entitled something like "Typical Deployment Scenarios - Home Routing." So, in my opinion, move the content from "In a typical..." through "port forwarding may be used" to that subsection, and let the main introductory section focus on what the protocol is, not what one particular use of it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking the provision of DHCP in home networks should be discussed in a larger context--to wit: what are the options for providing DHCP service in various network configurations. That should be addressed in its own section, which should include a link to the Residential gateway article, which should in turn provide more information about how they assign IP addresses. In any event, this information does not belong in the very first paragraph of this article. Joeldbenson (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you have a better idea of a real-world example, I'm all ears. However, I will not accept removing any real-world examples from the lead. This article has a long history of being too technical and abstract (to the point of unintelligibility) rather than not technical enough. This is not a technical manual. I realize it is a page which system admins mostly look at, but that doesn't mean it should not be written for a general audience. II | (t - c) 15:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- So your answer to Abhayakara's original complaint is that your goal was to lighten up the article for non-technical readers? I certainly agree that is needed, and thinking about it that way an example would probably help. So we just need to make sure it's viewed as an example rather than a confusion of the article's main purpose. Your taking it out of the very first paragraph was at least a step in that direction, possibly all that was needed.
- None-the-less, I am still thinking it wouldn't hurt to discuss the provision of DHCP services in networks of varying sizes, and to reference (and provide more DHCP info in) the Residential gateways article for the sake of your hypothetical user who comes to this article when working on his/her router and wants to know what DHCP is, etc.
- In a larger sense, we really do need to address Abhayakara earlier question: #What is the purpose of this article? I also think it has way too much technical detail that actually obscures the information the article should provide (although I can't help but wonder if it's possible to be both too technical and too abstract ). I would hope that this and other networking protocol articles are not intended for and primarily read by system admins (or, worse yet, programmers coding DHCP software), because they should already know this stuff and in any event should not be trying to learn it from Wikipedia. I'm thinking our target audience should be home users, hobbyists and high school students who don't want or need to see packet payload diagrams. Let's just direct those more technical readers to more appropriate information sources such as the RFCs. Joeldbenson (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm all about technical understanding of DHCP. It is a fundamental part of the internet. However, I do not see the purpose of these diagrams written in hexadecimal relating to DORA. I've just never seen DORA explained in this way. Why give the tables here in hexadecimal when computers send out these broadcasts in binary and people interpret them in decimal? Thanks 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Microsoft even has a simple little table for DORA here. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/169289 Maybe there's a compelling reason why this hexadecimal junk should stay, but at the very least I think this should have some charts and illustrations of the process. Kind of spice DHCP up a little bit on here. ^.^ And of course, add to clarity! Rousseaua001 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment User:Kvng Please make your case for merging, else I'm tempted to remove the flag on DHCP snooping as a separate expandable topic, c.f. ARP spoofing / ARP. Widefox; talk 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing the merge because DHCP snooping is a DHCP-related feature akin to DHCP relaying and we don't have a separate article for DHCP relaying. Spoofing is an attack technique and so is not a feature of the protocol and so arguably deserves a separate article. ~KvnG 14:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - size of DHCP and scope: snooping is a set of techniques rather than protocol so naturally leads to a separate article like ARP spoofing is techniques. If it wasn't for size I'd be for weak agree. Widefox; talk 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)