Skip Menu |
Report information
The Basics
Id: 45457
Status: resolved
Estimated: 8 hours (480 minutes)
Worked: 2.5 hours (150 minutes)
Users:
tmark: 2.5 hours (150 minutes)
Priority: 20/20
Queue: dhcp-public

Bug Information
Version Fixed: 4.4.0
Version Found: (no value)
Versions Affected: (no value)
Versions Planned: 4.4.0
Priority: (no value)
Severity: (no value)
CVSS Score: (no value)
CVE ID: (no value)
Component: (no value)
Area: feature

Dates
Created:Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:23:15 -0400
Updated:Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:47:20 -0500
Closed:Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:47:20 -0500



This bug tracker is no longer active.

Please go to our Gitlab to submit issues (both feature requests and bug reports) for active projects maintained by Internet Systems Consortium (ISC).

Due to security and confidentiality requirements, full access is limited to the primary maintainers.

From: "Pavel Kankovsky" <peak@argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
To: dhcp-bugs@isc.org
Subject: Zero delay between DHCPDECLINE a DHCPDISCOVER
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:23:06 +0200 (CEST)
The client in ISC DHCP 4.3.5 (and probably in older versions) does not wait between sending DHCPDECLINE (bind_lease() in client/dhclient.c) and sending DHCPDISCOVER (state_init() in client/dhclient.c). If the call of script_go() in bind_lease() keeps failing (e.g. when somethings breaks in dhclient-script), the client will spin in a DHCPDISCOVER-DHCPDISCOVER-DHCPDECLINE loop as quickly (and as long) as the server can respond. RFC 2131 says clients should wait at least 10 seconds between DHCPDECLINE and DHCPDISCOVER. See page 16: [...] If the client detects that the address is already in use (e.g., through the use of ARP), the client MUST send a DHCPDECLINE message to the server and restarts the configuration process. The client SHOULD wait a minimum of ten seconds before restarting the configuration process to avoid excessive network traffic in case of looping. -- Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak "Que sçay-je?"
Hello Pavel: Thank you for your submission. We are very close to the end of our release cycle for releases 4.3.6 and 4.1-ESV-R15 due our 7/31/17, so this issue is unlikely to be addressed before then. We will certainly consider it for our next feature release, 4.4.0. It's release date is TBD but is likely to be Q4/17 or Q1/18. You should get notifications as things progress. Again, thank you for your continued interest and support. Sincerely, Thomas Markwalder ISC Software Engineering
On Wed Nov 15 20:17:46 2017, tmark wrote: > Ticket is ready for review. Once rt46616 is merged, decline-wait-time > should be added to the client_universe so it can be specified via the > config file. => pushed a few fixes so please pull and review them. I didn't check the code itself but it seems OK and I believed you verified it does what it is supposed to do.
Hello Pavel: You'll be pleased to know that we have addressed your issue in dhclient in our upcoming feature release, 4.4.0, due out the first quarter of 2018. By default, dhclient will now wait 10 seconds after sending a DHCPDECLINE prior to sending a DHCPDISCOVER. This behavior can be altered via a new command line argument, --decline-wait-time <seconds>. This argument allows you to specify the time to wait, including 0 which means do not wait at all. We like to acknowledge our contributors by thanking them in our release notes. If you wish to recognized in this manner please respond with how you wish to be identified. Thank you for taking the time to report the issue to us. Regards, Thomas Markwalder ISC Software Engineering
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:30:43 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #45457] Zero delay between DHCPDECLINE a DHCPDISCOVER
From: "Pavel Kankovsky" <peak@argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
To: "Thomas Markwalder via RT" <dhcp-public@isc.org>
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Thomas Markwalder via RT wrote: > You'll be pleased to know that we have addressed your issue in dhclient > in our upcoming feature release, 4.4.0, [...] Thank you. > We like to acknowledge our contributors by thanking them in our release > notes. If you wish to recognized in this manner please respond with how > you wish to be identified. To be honest, I do not care. > Thank you for taking the time to report the issue to us. You are welcome. -- Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak "Que sçay-je?"