[dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Sat, 01 September 2001 03:08 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 XAA22510; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:08:35 -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 XAA02832; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02805 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:07:55 -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 XAA22496 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl081-147-128.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.147.128]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f8131wf18302; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 20:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7VHWfj00376; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108311732.f7VHWfj00376@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
cc: "DHCP discussion list" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: Message from Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> of "Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:40:28 PDT." <200108280340.UAA19954@scv1.apple.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:32:41 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>
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

> I write a DHCP client, and would like it to request both options, but I 
> expect server administrators will usually configure their servers to 
> return only one or the other, as appropriate for the particular site.
> 
> Ted writes a DHCP server, and would like it to be configured with data 
> for both options, but expects client administrators to configure their 
> clients to only request one or the other, as appropriate for the 
> particular site.

There is actually a good reason to put complexity in the client - it
distributes the work more fairly.  If you do the work on the server,
the workload increases by O(n), where n is the number of clients.
If you do it on the client, each client's workload increases by O(1).

I think in this case, with your proposed changes, there is no
additional workload for the server, so I'm happy to leave it that
way.   But as a general rule, when we are making decisions like this,
I think if we *can* push the work to the client, we should.

BTW, I am both a client and a server implementor - I am very fond of
the ISC DHCP client, which I use constantly as I roam from network to
network.  :')

			       _MelloN_

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