Re: [dhcwg] Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:43:07PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I think that we should specify what a client should do when it isn't 
> given a lifetime option, rather than leaving it to the implementor.   I 
> would pick a number - say an hour - and recommend that as a default 
> value when no lifetime has been given.   I would require that this be 
> configurable on the client.   We should make sure that there isn't some 
> corner case where a network administrator that wants a really long 
> lifetime doesn't get hosed by the default value, but I don't think it's 
> okay to just leave it unstated.

First, if the option is implemented by both client and server, I would
expect it to always be used.

One hour sounds rather short to me, normally I would expect several days
between each change. Question is then how bad it is if there is a change
and it takes some time before the client learns of it. But why wouldn't
you use this option if you worry about that. I would expect most servers
to support this option...

I think I would choose 6 hours or something as default, but that's just
my personal feeling.

Stig

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg