IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] Minutes from meeting in SLC, 12/10

"Steve Gonczi" <steve@relicore.com> Mon, 07 January 2002 20:21 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 PAA26913 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:21:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA20109 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:21:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19733; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:02:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19709 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:02:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from c001.iad.cp.net (c001-h000.c001.iad.cp.net [209.228.6.114]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA26444 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:02:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (cpmta 12206 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2002 15:02:13 -0500
Received: from 4.36.57.222 (HELO STEVEPC) by smtp.relicore.com (209.228.6.114) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2002 15:02:13 -0500
X-Sent: 7 Jan 2002 20:02:13 GMT
From: Steve Gonczi <steve@relicore.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Minutes from meeting in SLC, 12/10
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:57:53 -0500
Message-ID: <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKMEECCAAA.steve@relicore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020107131453.03655360@funnel.cisco.com>
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

Greetings,

I have just read the minutes of the last WG meeting. I am responding
to the following:

> (Tom) Narten said that
>the IESG was unhappy with the DHCPv4 load balancing behavior, in which
>a server drops requests not in its bucket, because there is no
>recovery mechanism in response to a server failure. 

I believe RFC 3074 provides an option to deal with this...
Section 5.3 (Delayed Service parameter)

Happy New Year to all!

/sG

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email