RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24

"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Wed, 15 May 2002 20:18 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21166 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA28708 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28583; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28554 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [208.237.135.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21029 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mr7.exu.ericsson.se (mr7u3.ericy.com [208.237.135.122]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g4FKG5l05339 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:16:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from eamrcnt749 (eamrcnt749.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.47]) by mr7.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g4FKG5Q11360 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:16:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: FROM eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se BY eamrcnt749 ; Wed May 15 15:16:02 2002 -0500
Received: by eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <KRTWN3Z8>; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:16:02 -0500
Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D42C@EAMBUNT705>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: "'Ted Lemon'" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "'JINMEI Tatuya / ????'" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 15:16:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1FC4D.54C4CEB0"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

But I would assume if you got zero Advertises back from the first transmission that it likely failed to be received by anyone (perhaps because the Relay did not forward it). That's why I think it might be best to always have the IRT time elapse. But, I fully agree that as more retransmission occur, this is less and less of an issue. And, if there is only one server, it could just as likely have been the response that was lost. But in this case, you'd set the server to use a preference of 255 and gain the benefit.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:03 PM
To: Bernie Volz (EUD)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; 'JINMEI Tatuya / ????'
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] additional comments on dhcpv6-24


> Regarding (2), good question ... I would say it should. The logic might 
> simply be send a Solicit, wait IRT, check if any Advertises received ... 
> if so, go use them otherwise send Solicit again.

I think it makes more sense to say that if IRT has elapsed since the first 
Solicit was sent, the client just takes the first Advertise it gets.   This 
is how I implemented the ISC DHCPv4 client, and it seems to work pretty 
nicely.