On Sat Jun 21 14:17:08 2014, rafal@ztk-rp.eu wrote: <br />
&gt; W dniu 21.06.2014 00:24, Shawn Routhier via RT pisze: <br />
&gt; &gt;   Were there any other log messages about the lease? <br />
&gt; &gt; <br />
&gt; &gt; If your client is using a valid lease it should remember <br />
&gt; &gt; that and do a renew or rebind which doesn't trigger a <br />
&gt; &gt; ping check. If your client isn't using a valid lease it <br />
&gt; &gt; shouldn't respond to the ping request. <br />
&gt; &gt; <br />
&gt; If the logs are not yet recycled, I'll check that on monday. May be the  <br />
&gt; actual sequence of msgs will tell you more. <br />
&gt;  <br />
&gt; But as I remember it, the notebook did run for a while afrer rewakening  <br />
&gt; from sllep with and old IP, then had it changed because setver did  <br />
&gt; &quot;abondon&quot; the old IP. <br />
&gt;  <br />
&gt; My impression is, that MAC of the notebook didn't change, so no matter  <br />
&gt; what, the server should keep the same IP for the same MAC (if  <br />
&gt; randomisation is not requested) e.g: &quot;no matter what request was&quot;, and  <br />
&gt; shold not ping at alll in such case... just to let live the &quot;wrong  <br />
&gt; clients&quot;, which don't know how to ask properly for renewal. The only  <br />
&gt; concern is not to assign the same address twice, and this is ansured by  <br />
&gt; comparing MACs. Right? <br />
<br />
The IP could change if the server handed it out to a different client or<br />
if the notebook changed subnets. &nbsp;<br />
<br />
I'll have to revisit the RFCs and think about this some more but it would<br />
probably be best if the server allowed the client to use the address in<br />
this case.<br />
<br />
That said this doesn't seem to be a high priority item so I'm not sure<br />
when we will address it.<br />
<br />
&gt;  <br />
&gt; -R <br />
&gt;  <br />
<br />
<br />