81–90 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing proprietary about this.
Do you have any examples of other vendors using the last assigned address as a default?
> This network recognition technique allows the Mac to very rapidly discover if it is connected to a known network. If the network is recognized (and presumably if the Mac knows that the DHCP lease is still active), it immediately and presumptuously configures its IP interface with the address it knows is good for this network. Ok, seriously? That isn't a bug in an implementation somewhere, but in fact a feature that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any examples of other vendors using the last assigned address as a default?
Proprietary in the computer sense is generally taken to mean closed source or at least not made available to competitors or others. There's nothing to stop any other systems offering this kind of quick start DHCP service.
This is a great example of Apple's detail-oriented focus on real-world user experience, and helps explain why people prefer Macs even if they can't always explain why. Lots of little things just work better. You (where "you" == myself and many others, even if not /you/ personally) are left overall with an experience of less frustration.
Is this case the Mac user may get a better UX, but the user who's IP was just stolen has a worse one.
> This network recognition technique allows the Mac to very rapidly discover if it is connected to a known network. If the network is recognized (and presumably if the Mac knows that the DHCP lease is still active), it immediately and presumptuously configures its IP interface with the address it knows is good for this network. Ok, seriously? That isn't a bug in an implementation somewhere, but in fact a feature that…
I think that you're wrong because, basically, if that 'steal an IP address' scenario happens, it means that the DHCP server has in some way broken its promises. That _happens_ in production environments, but I'd much rather clients use behavior like this, that assumes that a DHCP server will keep its promises about things like lease length, than assume the worst about the DHCP server. The clients should first assume…
The usual (perhaps standard, I'm not sure) process has the device confirming its DHCP lease when coming back on, and in this situation the device would be notified that it can't have the old lease as it's been repurposed, and the server will provide another lease (perhaps after killing some yet another lease).
If this is an Apple device and it behaves in the manner described, after coming back "on" it will not consult DHCP, but rather it will reuse the lease it held previously. If the server has given that lease to another device, the Apple device will butt in, causing an IP conflict. Perversely, the Apple device will shortly discover this, actually do a DHCP request, and switch over with no indication to the user, leaving the other device to wonder why it had an IP conflict and how to handle it.
Is this incorrect in any way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, if you're uncomfortable with the trade-off, avoid Apple devices. Personally, I only see the number of devices like the iPad/iPhone increasing, and I'm relatively confident that your normal user doesn't give a damn about any of this. They want the device to work when they turn it on. I'd also argue that any DHCP server that applies that policy of artificially limiting the IP pool by re-issuing non-expired…
> They want the device to work when they turn it on. If there is a collision, then this doesn't 'just work' when the user turns it on. Just sayin'. From the user's perspective the device should never fail, in any situation, for any reason... ever. Users don't care about trade-offs because they don't want to trade anything off, they want it all, 5 minutes ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Down-thread of this comment, people have already discussed numerous issues with the assumption that DHCP leases are stable when not in use (such as that servers often choose to allocate out of an artificially small pool of addresses, and ping old addresses to determine if they are in use before simply reclaiming and reassigning them).
Like I said, if you're uncomfortable with the trade-off, avoid Apple devices. Personally, I only see the number of devices like the iPad/iPhone increasing, and I'm relatively confident that your normal user doesn't give a damn about any of this. They want the device to work when they turn it on. I'd also argue that any DHCP server that applies that policy of artificially limiting the IP pool by re-issuing non-expired…
Something tells me Saurik is a tad more invested at this point, it's not really as simple as "avoiding Apple devices" when you are the dev of Cydia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, if you're uncomfortable with the trade-off, avoid Apple devices. Personally, I only see the number of devices like the iPad/iPhone increasing, and I'm relatively confident that your normal user doesn't give a damn about any of this. They want the device to work when they turn it on. I'd also argue that any DHCP server that applies that policy of artificially limiting the IP pool by re-issuing non-expired…
> They want the device to work when they turn it on. If there is a collision, then this doesn't 'just work' when the user turns it on. Just sayin'. From the user's perspective the device should never fail, in any situation, for any reason... ever. Users don't care about trade-offs because they don't want to trade anything off, they want it all, 5 minutes ago.
No, it just potentially kicks off another user. I've never been unable to acquire an IP because of this practice, I've just seen other people's wireless mysteriously give up the ghost when I connect with my iPhone or Mac. I would prefer to have the aggressive device, personally.
Anecdotally, my mac is absolutely horrible at connecting to my wifi. I often have to try multiple times and some times I give up, have to walk over to the router and restart it before I can get on. Probably an issue with the router ultimately, but I don't have this problem with other devices.
The only time Ive ever had issues with OS X connecting to wifi was while using a cheapo router that insisted on advertising its 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks using the same SSID. Moving to a router that allowed them to be configured with different SSIDs resolved all my issues.
That is the default behaviour for an Airport Extreme.
I do no use any Apple operating systems, but I have never had an issue with WIFI connection and address assignment times on any platform that I have used with regularity.
On both windows and linux I am connected before I can even start an application.