Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 08 May 2002 16:16 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 MAA15177 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 12:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA11731 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 May 2002 12:16:36 -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 MAA11390; Wed, 8 May 2002 12:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11365 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 12:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14988 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 12:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g48GBlS09672; Wed, 8 May 2002 09:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tongpanyi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g48GCj600356; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:12:45 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:12:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200205081512.g48FCT419328@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <6E94CA24-629E-11D6-A5AB-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I understand this to be a holdover from DHC. But if the goal is to > provide backup servers info on when they should respond, the > retransmission count might be more useful than the elapsed time. It's true that a count would serve the functional purpose, but the retransmission time is easy to generate, serves the same purpose, and provides additional information. So why use the less functional retransmission count? _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Thomas Narten
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option Vijayabhaskar A K