IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 27 July 2012 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72C311E80E6; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxuTLaUCezcB; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF2411E80D6; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBLtNMuTGXBlGlsHIJJTdBBjD5qSS6IK@postini.com; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:15 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F3D1B82CD; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8542719005D; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:34:11 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
Thread-Index: Ac1lKbWyQQI76YWORI2Pw5j/xa2lTwGSVp6QAAD2YUAAALuhAAAiadTwAAl/+jAAD/3vgA==
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:34:10 +0000
Message-ID: <D2E362D0-DEAB-4024-BC18-A20D98862778@nominum.com>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B70B231@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B7235BF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E02CD82@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B72551C@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B72551C@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2E362D0DEAB4024BC18A20D98862778nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:34:16 -0000

On Jul 27, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Right.   I think the goal should be to minimize the amount of processing the
client has to do with the option contents... just pass it to getaddrinfo() or
equivalent was what the WG had discussed.

Remembering that the DHCP server automatically translates names to IP addresses in its configuration, why is it necessary to place this burden on the client?   Traditionally DHCP just sends IP addresses, not names, precisely because it minimizes the burden on the client while maintaining the flexibility of doing name translation on the server.   I assume you already considered this, because I'm pretty sure you've seen debates about this go by before, but I'm curious as to why you decided to send a name rather than an IP address.

v2.40.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status