Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'The purpose of the DHCP Client Identifier' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
The purpose of the DHCP Client Identifier
Authored by: src-kc8rmb on Apr 03, '04 12:50:49PM

The DHCP Client Identifier is just that, a unique (per subnet) identifier (such as a hostname or serial number) allowing the server to identify the client and select the appropriate response. In the absence of a Client Identifier, the "chaddr" field (hardware address) is used.

Since every Ethernet/WiFi device has a unique hardware address w/o any configuration, that's what's used most of the time. Unless the server has specific per client configuration it barely matters which you use.

@HOME and others use this because it's easier for them to restrict who can get an IP address by using a fixed per client id than by forcing customers to accurately provide them a 12 hex digit Ethernet address and change it everytime they change computers or interfaces cards.

The use in logging is secondary, and primarily for network troubleshooting. A client specified field isn't a very good choice for auditing and security purposes.

Changing the client id or entering junk willy-nilly is bad for two reasons:

(1) The protocol basically requires the server to see each different client id (plus the original chaddr) as a different client, forcing the server to keep issuing new leases without invalidating the old (chewing up the IP space).

(2) It greatly increases the likelyhood that you will enter a client id which someone else on your subnet has used. This can result in duplicate IP addresses, which is a major headache (for you too), defeating one of the biggest benefits of DHCP.

For more information, please see RFC 2131: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, available whereever your favorite RFC's are given away, not sold (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2131.txt).



[ Reply to This | # ]