Re: server-to-server protocols

"Robert G. Cole" <> Tue, 15 April 1997 17:27 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa03178; 15 Apr 97 13:27 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15533; 15 Apr 97 13:27 EDT
Received: from by; (5.65v3.2/ id AA05294; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:19:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:19:33 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Robert G. Cole" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: server-to-server protocols
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)


At 05:09 PM 4/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>The fundamental question that I am asking is 'Just what is the nature of 
>what the server-to-server protocol is trying to accomplish?'  In particular, 
>are we attempting to synchronize binding information (alone) among servers, 
>or are we attempting to enable one server to take-over from another by 
>synchronizing configuration information?

I guess I naively assumed both. That is, 1) I started to build an interserver
message that included the full client binding information and
2) I simply assumed that a goal of the interserver protocol
was to allow the configuration of a single server of the SG and
have this propagate throughout the SG.  But you raise a good point
that I hadn't considered, i.e., that these are seperable.

I couldn't see any way out of 1) passing full client binding information.
Any further thought on 2), is this a 'can of worms' ?