Re: server-to-server protocols

Sean Goller <shon+@andrew.cmu.edu> Wed, 16 April 1997 00:12 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa17876; 15 Apr 97 20:12 EDT
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23818; 15 Apr 97 20:12 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM) id AA14050; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:05:22 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:05:22 -0400
Message-Id: <knJ13Ui00UM9BmSv5k@andrew.cmu.edu>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Sean Goller <shon+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: server-to-server protocols
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4

I'd just like to reiterate my statement at the working group meeting
regarding server to server synchronization (for the benefit of those who
weren't there):

We (as a working group) are already working on providing SNMP
manageability for DHCP servers, so why not reduce our overall work and
use SNMP for synchronization? SNMP quite clearly is designed as a
repository of organized information, and is an existing standard that
many vendors have already implemented. Both push and pull models can be
implemented, and by using SNMP informs, is also reliable. Since there
also seemed to be a consensus that client binding information should be
accessible via SNMP, we're killing two birds with one protocol. :)

-Sean.