Re: Choosing length of lease
"Michael J. Lewis" <hosmjl@chevron.com> Tue, 12 November 1996 04:10 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id ae07398; 11 Nov 96 23:10 EST
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20056;
11 Nov 96 19:59 EST
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu;
(5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM)
id AA27153; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:49:32 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:49:32 -0500
Message-Id: <3287B707.531A@chevron.com>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Michael J. Lewis" <hosmjl@chevron.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: Choosing length of lease
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
A very unscientific study of traffic at my installation showed that DHCP took .05% maximum of LAN traffic. (This occurred Monday morning during the after weekend reboot cycle.) Two DHCP servers were in use at the time one with a seven day lease and the other a 30 day lease. Normal DHCP traffic ranged from .01% to 0%. (FYI, I do mean .01% not one per cent.) Mark Sirota wrote: > > John M. Wobus wrote: > > (1) At your own site, how long do you make leases and why did you > > choose this time? > > Initially, our leases in the residential dorms were made one year long. > That way, students were guaranteed to have the same address all year, > which is very important to them. Furthermore, those few who stay > in the dorms year-round get the same address indefinitely. > > We have since reduced it to four months, long enough to cover the > summer. If a student renews near the end of the academic year, and > gets back early, and lives in the same dorm, they'll get the same > address the following year, but we will survive the big September > crunch. > > In non-Resnet networks, we generally do one-day leases, with a maximum > of one week. > > > (2) Are there lease-lengths that you would consider to be a > > lower-bound or upper-bound for any ALL practical uses? If so, > > what would you be trying to avoid by staying above/below this > > bound. > > One concern I have about the very short lease times that some people > have reported is, what about load on the server and the network > to which the server is connected? In a large installation, with > thousands of addresses being served by a single central server, this > seems like it could be a consideration. > > On the flip side, it looks like just about everything communicates with > the server when it boots, even if the lease is fresh, so maybe short > leases (as long as they are one day or more) don't introduce that much > extra traffic. > -- > Mark Sirota, Network Systems Engineer > University of Pennsylvania, Information Systems and Computing > msirota@isc.upenn.edu, 215/573-7214
- Choosing length of lease John M. Wobus
- Re: Choosing length of lease Mike Carney - SunSoft Internet Engineering
- Re: Choosing length of lease Michael J. Lewis
- Re: Choosing length of lease Mark Sirota
- Re: Choosing length of lease Michael J. Lewis
- RE: Choosing length of lease Hibbs, R Barr (rbhibbs)