Re: minimum lease
"Pratap Reddy P." <pratap@sonicsys.stph.net> Fri, 09 February 1996 22:01 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27957;
9 Feb 96 17:01 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27953;
9 Feb 96 17:01 EST
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15128;
9 Feb 96 17:01 EST
Received: from localhost by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA19852; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:58:01 -0500
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:58:01 -0500
Message-Id: <v02130500ab6036b79bb2@[196.12.54.27]>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
X-Orig-Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Pratap Reddy P." <pratap@sonicsys.stph.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: minimum lease
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
>I just noticed that the specification of a minimum lease value (1 hour) >that appeared in RFC 1541 isn't in any of the drafts. I came in around >dhcp-02, so I assume this was taken out before that. > Is there, in fact, no longer any lower limit on lease time? > I don't think there is any lower limit on lease time. At least, I have seen one client which doesn't care lease time to be 1 hour. - pratap
- Re: minimum lease Pratap Reddy P.