Question about renewal and rebinding times
Mohamed el Lozy <ellozy@jimmy.harvard.edu> Mon, 26 February 1996 16:50 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21420;
26 Feb 96 11:50 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21416;
26 Feb 96 11:50 EST
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09588;
26 Feb 96 11:50 EST
Received: from localhost by reef.bucknell.edu with SMTP
(5.65/IDA-1.2.8) id AA27815; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:43:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:43:14 -0500
Message-Id: <199602261530.KAA08289@sid.dfci.harvard.edu>
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: Mohamed el Lozy <ellozy@jimmy.harvard.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Question about renewal and rebinding times
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
X-Organization: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
I am using the bootp with samba dhcp patches, and I noticed that the
renewal and rebinding times are hard-coded (relative to the lease
time) in the code:
{
*(*vp)++ = TAG_DHCP_IPRENEW; /* DHCP Renewal time 50% of lease */
*(*vp)++ = 4; /* Length */
insert_u_long(htonl(hp->dhcp_lease/2),vp);
*(*vp)++ = TAG_DHCP_IPREBIND; /* DHCP Rebinding time 85% of lease */
*(*vp)++ = 4;
insert_u_long(htonl(hp->dhcp_lease*7/8),vp);
Is this considered a desirable way of doing things, or would it be
more reasonable to allow them to be specified individually in the
tables?
Thanks.
Mohamed
- Question about renewal and rebinding times Mohamed el Lozy
- Re: Question about renewal and rebinding times Ralph Droms