Report information
The Basics
Id:
41976
Status:
resolved
Estimated:
8 hours (480 minutes)
Worked:
24 hours (1,440 minutes)
Users:
tmark: 24 hours (1,440 minutes)
Left:
8 hours (480 minutes)
Priority:
Low/Low
Queue:

BugTracker
Version Fixed:
4.4.0 4.3.6 4.1-ESV-R15
Version Found:
(no value)
Versions Affected:
(no value)
Versions Planned:
4.3.6
Priority:
P2 Normal
Severity:
S2 Normal
CVSS Score:
(no value)
CVE ID:
(no value)
Component:
DHCP Server
Area:
bug

Dates
Created:Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:50:05 -0400
Updated:Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:14:48 -0400
Closed:Wed, 17 May 2017 09:23:42 -0400



This bug tracker is no longer active.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.

Subject: Failover + infinite leases
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:49:58 +0000 (UTC)
To: "dhcp-bugs@isc.org" <dhcp-bugs@isc.org>
From: "Alessandro Gherardi" <alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com>

Message body is not shown because it is too large.

Hello Alessandro: You'll be pleased to learn that we've addressed your issue and will be including the fix in our upcoming releases 4.3.6 and 4.1-ESV-R15 due out July 31, 2017. We solved it differently then you suggested as the problem is deeper than the value being sent to the client getting truncated. It is our custom to thank our contributors by citing them in the release notes. If you would like to be recognized in this fashion please respond with how you wish to be identified. Most often it is by name and organization. Thank you for taking the time to report the issue to us. Sincerely, Thomas Markwalder ISC Software Engineering
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #41976] Failover + infinite leases
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 23:36:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: "dhcp-review@isc.org" <dhcp-review@isc.org>
From: "Alessandro Gherardi" <alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com>
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for the update.

I have a question: Since the failover protocol uses 32-bits timestamps, it is not y2k38 safe. Correct? Does your fix include changing protocol to make it y2k38 safe, or will that still be an issue?

Alessandro




From: Thomas Markwalder via RT <dhcp-review@isc.org>
To: alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 12:42 PM
Subject: [ISC-Bugs #41976] Failover + infinite leases

Hello Alessandro:

You'll be pleased to learn that we've addressed your issue and will be including the fix in our upcoming releases 4.3.6 and 4.1-ESV-R15 due out July 31, 2017. We solved it differently then you suggested as the problem is deeper than the value being sent to the client getting truncated.

It is our custom to thank our contributors by citing them in the release notes.  If you would like to be recognized in this fashion please respond with how you wish to be identified.  Most often it is by name and organization.

Thank you for taking the time to report the issue to us.

Sincerely,

Thomas Markwalder
ISC Software Engineering





On Thu May 11 23:36:53 2017, alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com wrote: > Hi Thomas,Thank you for the update. > I have a question: Since the failover protocol uses 32-bits > timestamps, it is not y2k38 safe. Correct? => half correct: the failover uses unsigned timestamps, the y2k38 issue is for signed timestamps, e.g. ANSI time_t. > Does your fix include changing protocol to make it y2k38 safe, > or will that still be an issue? => no, it should break in 21 years...
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #41976] Failover + infinite leases
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 06:35:55 -0400
To: dhcp-review@isc.org
From: "Thomas Markwalder" <tmark@isc.org>
On 5/12/17 3:34 AM, Francis Dupont via RT wrote: > On Thu May 11 23:36:53 2017, alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com wrote: >> Hi Thomas,Thank you for the update. >> I have a question: Since the failover protocol uses 32-bits >> timestamps, it is not y2k38 safe. Correct? > => half correct: the failover uses unsigned timestamps, > the y2k38 issue is for signed timestamps, e.g. ANSI time_t. > >> Does your fix include changing protocol to make it y2k38 safe, >> or will that still be an issue? > => no, it should break in 21 years... > > > > To clarify, Alessandro: The failover draft rfc dictates 4-byte time values: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-failover-12#page-51. Regards, Thomas Markwalder
Hello Alessandro: You did not state if you wished to be cited in our release notes. If you do, please let me know how you would like to be identified. Most often it is by name and/or organization. Regards, Thomas Markwalder ISC Software Engineering
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #41976] Failover + infinite leases
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 12:47:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: "dhcp-review@isc.org" <dhcp-review@isc.org>
From: "Alessandro Gherardi" <alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com>

Hi Thomas,
Please use my first and last name - Alessandro Gherardi. No organization name.

Regards,
Alessandro


From: Thomas Markwalder via RT <dhcp-review@isc.org>
To: alessandro.gherardi@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:48 AM
Subject: [ISC-Bugs #41976] Failover + infinite leases

Hello Alessandro:

You did not state if you wished to be cited in our release notes.  If you do, please let me know how you would like to be identified.  Most often it is by name and/or organization.

Regards,

Thomas Markwalder
ISC Software Engineering