Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-02

[Marcin Siodelski <[e-mail]>]

Kim and Tomek,

Thanks for addressing my comments. Below I clarified some of the comments
with respect to section 9.11. It may be the case that I misunderstood the
part regarding unresponsiveness in the Resolution-Interrupted state. I am
hoping that my point will be clearer to you with the additional info below.

> 9.11. RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED
> > - In the introduction to this chapter it is pointed out that if the
> > server's remained in the POTENTIAL-CONFLICT state and the resolution of
> > the conflict was interrupted, they transition to RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED
> > and they are unresponsive to clients
>
>         I don't see the statement about being unresponsive to clients.
>         Could you point me at it more specifically?
>

Here is an exact citation from this section:

" This state indicates that the two servers were attempting to

reintegrate with each other in POTENTIAL-CONFLICT state, but
communications failed prior to completion of re-integration.

If the servers remained in POTENTIAL-CONFLICT while communications
was interrupted, neither server would be responsive to DHCP client
requests, and if one server had crashed, then there might be no
server able to process DHCP requests."


When I said that "they are unresponsive to clients" I was referring to
this part of the cited text: "... neither server would be responsive
to DHCP client requests..."





> > (I presume this is because they
> > were unresponsive when being in POTENTIAL-CONFLICT state and the
> > conflict is still assumed to be present).
>
>         No, not really.  That is the point of RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED
>         state -- they can attempt to do *something*, and not just
>         sit there waiting for the partner.
>

Ok. So, what they do? They rise an alarm as stated in the last paragraph of
9.11.
But still, my understanding is that servers are unresponsive to clients as
stated in the "... neither server would be responsive to DHCP client
requests...".  (see above).


>
> > If you take a look at the
> > 9.11.1. it is said that the server MUST respond to all DHCP client
> > requests. That looks contrary to the previous statement.
>
>         Indeed, but I can't find the previous statement...
>

Cited above.


> > My
> > understanding is that the server can't respond in the
> > RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED state thus it requires administrative
> > intervention.
>
>         I don't know where in the document you got that idea
>         from, but I'd like to fix it.
>

See above.

Marcin