RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05

Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com> Wed, 14 July 2004 13:15 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14921; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjVx-0000pL-Dr; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:09:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjRC-0007CB-EX for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:04:42 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14027 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjRB-0005ET-S8 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:04:41 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BkjQ6-0004sg-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:03:35 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BkjPY-0004Tz-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:03:01 -0400
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2004 06:03:42 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6ED2Me8027019; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mjs-xp.cisco.com ([161.44.65.118]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id AKC66653; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:02:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040714085855.01d19710@goblet.cisco.com>
X-Sender: mjs@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:02:00 -0400
To: "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
From: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05
In-Reply-To: <000c01c4699c$81c34810$4bfeba44@amer.cisco.com>
References: <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKCEHHCJAA.steve@relicore.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,OPT_HEADER autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, soohong.park@samsung.com, "'Steve Gonczi'" <steve@relicore.com>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

I agree with Bernie. It's true that sending the extra 'REQUEST' is 
inexpensive, but it's just another unreliable UDP packet. I don't think 
that the suggested extra step provides enough benefit to be worth including.

-- Mark

At 08:17 AM 7/14/2004 -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
>This likely isn't as a cut and dry as you assume. Does the DHCPREQUEST get 
>retransmitted until it is ACKed? What happens if it isn't ACKed? What 
>happens if it is NAK?
>
>- Bernie
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>Steve Gonczi
>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:35 PM
>To: soohong.park@samsung.com
>Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on 
>draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05
>
>Hi Daniel,
>
>I have to admit I am not entirely clear on what you meant,
>although I suspect you disagree with my suggestion.
>
>Let me try to make my case:
>
>For the cost of sending out one extra message by the Rapid Commit
>client (which BTW does not cause any significant delay)
>you could eliminate the entire 3.2 section from your protocol.
>
>To recap:
>
>1)  The "no multiple servers" restriction
>2)  or "must have enough addresses" restriction
>3)  or "use short lease times" restriction
>
>Why would you not want to do this?
>
>
>/sG
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PARK SOO HONG [mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:54 PM
>To: Steve Gonczi; soohong.park@samsung.com
>Cc: Bernie Volz; dhcwg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on 
>draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05
>
>Hi Steve, thanks your comments and see my comment inline
>
>
>
> >When the Rapid commit client decides to accept an address
> >sent via a Rapid Commit ack, it should send out a DHCPREQUEST
> >(perhaps with the rapid commit option),
> >similar to the classic DHC protocol.
>
>
>
>I'd keep the original sentence since to sync the operation of DHCPv6,
>
>also make sure this option is for *RAPID COMMIT*.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>
>Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
>
>Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg