On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 08:15:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> There surely is other documentation available ...

There may or may not be other explanatory documentation, which may be more
or less accurate, doesn’t change the fact that the RFC is the official
spec.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 08:15:34 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> There surely is other documentation available ...
>
>There may or may not be other explanatory documentation, which may be more
>or less accurate, doesn’t change the fact that the RFC is the official
>spec.

I just wanted to help you to educate yourself about the protocol. I am
sufficiently familiar with the protocol to not need a communications
diagram and I am not aware whether the RFC even contains one, so I was
just encouraging you to look for one as this might help you to clear
up your misunderstandings about DHCP.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:09:33 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> I am sufficiently familiar with the protocol to not need a
> communications diagram and I am not aware whether the RFC even contains
> one ...

Interesting. You claim to be “sufficiently familiar” with a protocol while
admitting you have never read the official spec?

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:23:20 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> You still didnt understand how it works. Next step would be looking at a
> packet trace.

Go on, then. Show us one, and show us how it gets through a router the
same way a “routable” protocol does.

Otherwise you can’t call it “routable”, can you?

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:22:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> Exercise: Outline how a host renews its lease.

Through the same DHCP server it was able to contact without going through
a router? Or does it somehow have to use a different server for this?

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:29:53 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>So a “special tunnelling mechanism” is NOT tunnelling? Keep on tying
>>yourself in knots ...
>
> Nothing that we are discussing in this thread is tunneling.

Then why did TNP talk about a “special tunnelling mechanism”? Seems to me
your understanding of DHCP and that of some other “experts” trying to
dispute with me don’t quite agree with one another. Maybe get your own
story straight before trying to claim I’m wrong?

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:26:15 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 08:18:57 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> You're reasoning is flawed.
>>
>>I’m what reasoning is flawed??
>>
>>Does not parse.
>
> Biting on someone else's typos is a sure sign of running out of factual
> arguments.

First you actually have to have arguments that make some kind of
grammatical sense, before they can even be understood as “factual” (or
not).

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:22:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> Exercise: Outline how a host renews its lease.
>
>Through the same DHCP server it was able to contact without going through
>a router? Or does it somehow have to use a different server for this?

You will find that information in your packet trace.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> Marc Haber wrote:
>> You still didnt understand how it works. Next step would be looking
>> at a packet trace.
>
> Go on, then. Show us one, and show us how it gets through a router the
> same way a “routable” protocol does.

Marc already gave a clear explanation in <v00acu$cf1i$1@news1.tnib.de>.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2024-04-15, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 4/15/24 01:50, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> Why does it get called "TCP/IP" so often? What is the origin of that
>> name?
>
> That's at lease partially becuase IPv1-3 was a single protocol. There
> was lots of debating going on during the development of IPv1-3 for the
> raw point to point that IP provides and in order delivery circuit that
> TCP provides. It was part way through the development that the
> realized that they could split IP into two layers TCP for end-to-end /
> in-order delivery and IP for point to point connectivity that other
> protocols could use.
>
>> These are two different protocols for different layers and that name
>> does not include, say, UDP.
>
> IPv1-3 was split into TCP/IPv4. TCP was the first protocol that ran
> on top of IPv4. I think part of the reason for the split name was to
> emphasize the split protocol design.
>
> I think UDP was officially documented within a year of TCP/IPv4 being
> documented. But the progenitor of UDP existed before TCP/IPv4 was
> documented. Experiments were ongoing with the parts of IPv3 that
> became UDP/IP. Some of the experiments were for voice transmission.

Thanks for this explanation! I can't believe I either never came across
this information or I forgot it. Which probably means I have a lot of
interesting reading to do regarding this area of computing history :-)

--
Nuno Silva

On 4/27/24 11:45, Nuno Silva wrote:
> Thanks for this explanation!

You're welcome.

> I can't believe I either never came across this information or I
> forgot it.

Eh. I'm not too surprised. Most people got their introduction to
TCP/IPv4 and never looked at what came before that.

> Which probably means I have a lot of interesting reading to do
> regarding this area of computing history :-)

There's a lot of history. Some of it is interesting. Less of it is
actually useful save for knowing where we have been / come from as
influence to where we are going.

But day to day, knowing about history doesn't help as much as one might
hope.

--
Grant. . . .

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:38:10 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>>
>>> You still didnt understand how it works. Next step would be looking at
>>> a packet trace.
>>
>> Go on, then. Show us one, and show us how it gets through a router the
>> same way a “routable” protocol does.
>
> Marc already gave a clear explanation in <v00acu$cf1i$1@news1.tnib.de>.

We asked for a packet trace, not yet another “explanation”
misunderstanding about a non-routable protocol.