Re: server-to-server protocols

Ted Lemon <mellon@hoffman.vix.com> Sat, 12 April 1997 00:06 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa23253; 11 Apr 97 20:06 EDT
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22901; 11 Apr 97 20:06 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM) id AA28684; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:33:45 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:33:45 -0400
Message-Id: <199704112154.OAA01680@andare.fugue.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: Ted Lemon <mellon@hoffman.vix.com>
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

> 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?

Gosh, I *really* hope that we aren't going to try to go beyond
synchronizing binding information.   I'd really like to have the DHCP
Interserver Protocol (DIP :') working before the new millenium.

			       _MelloN_