Re: I never thought of this scenario

On 4/20/24 01:18, Marc Haber wrote:

The don't need to be if a DHCP agent is available. DHCP agents are considerably easier to implement AND don't need persistent state. They can just be implemented in "less intellgent" network devices. This also considerably eases exchange of defective devices since you don't lose state unless it's the DHCP server itself that is exchanged.

I agree that they don't /need/ to be.  But they /can/ be.  ;-)

That is unneccesarily confusing, DHCP has nothing to do with browse master elections. I surely hope that Windows doesn't do those any more.

It was a reference to how a DHCP server can serve a /remote/ subnet and thus avoid undesirable traffic inherently local to the (remote) subnet.
DHCP can provide node type and NBNS settings which influence if and when SMB broadcasts are sent.
--
Grant. . . .