Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 09 May 2002 16:57 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 MAA29869 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2002 12:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA09275 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 9 May 2002 12:57:49 -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 MAA09120; Thu, 9 May 2002 12:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09091 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2002 12:55:28 -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 MAA29658 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2002 12:55:19 -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 g49GsOS13373; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tongpanyi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g49GtP600689; Thu, 9 May 2002 11:55:25 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:55:25 -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: 'Thomas Narten' <narten@us.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D3DA@EAMBUNT705>
Message-Id: <8EAED7CA-636D-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

> If the server should fail to get a Reply to the Request and restarts the 
> Solicit, time should not be reset.
>
> - Time is 0 when first Renew/Rebind is sent. Increases with each 
> retransmission until timeout or Reply.
>
> - Time is 0 when first Decline/Release is sent. Increases with each 
> retransmission until timeout or Reply.
>
> - Time is 0 when first Information-Request is sent. Increases with each 
> retransmission until timeout or Reply.
>

I think if you let the relay agent make relaying decisions based on the 
time sent by the client, you're in big trouble.   Picture this:

client sends solicit A, t=0
relay sends solicit to server A
client sends solicit B, t=100
relay sends solicit to server B
server A responds to solicit A with advertise A
client sends Request A, t=100
relay sends Request A to server B
server B drops Request A on the floor

repeat until bored

The only reliable way to fix this is to have the server send the time it 
received from the client in the solicit back to the client in the advertise,
  and for the client to use that time in every subsequent Request, 
regardless of how long it has to retry.   This is complicated to specify, 
and complicated to implement.   Do we really want this?


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