Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net!.POSTED.omega.home.tnetconsulting.net!not-for-mail From: Grant Taylor Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: I never thought of this scenario Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:17:31 -0500 Organization: TNet Consulting Message-ID: References: <752c9924-9b76-73ce-a037-51cb30846239@example.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:17:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net; posting-host="omega.home.tnetconsulting.net:198.18.1.140"; logging-data="3054"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@tnetconsulting.net" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <752c9924-9b76-73ce-a037-51cb30846239@example.net> Bytes: 2328 Lines: 21 On 4/20/24 05:37, D wrote: > I'm no DHCP ninja, so please forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't it be > possible to just setup a test to prove who the winner is? I thought about doing that very thing. Then I decided that it wasn't worth my time to do so. And that even if it was, there's no way that I could convince people that my results are genuine. So I'm not wasting my time. > Or is it the case that different DHCP server/client software is > implemented differently so it might work with some and not others, > and that that is the heart of the conflict? No, I don't think that this would matter enough in different implementations. Assuming that it's a standard compliant implementation. Thus eliding incomplete implementations / early implementations. -- Grant. . . .