RE: [dhcwg] Failover: poolreq message secondary-only?

The primary can also simply initiate a reclaim of addresses by sending requests to the secondary.

We originally set up the PoolReq the way it is documented before load balancing really seriously entered the picture. But, we did discuss this several times after load balancing was introduced and felt it wasn't necessary since the flow of addresses was typically back to the primary and since it "owned" these, it was more in control of what it gave to the secondary.

Either server can request state changes to move an address to itself.

Note sure if this explains it well enough. But, I don't see a real need for doing this. Ted, perhaps you have a specific case for why this might be needed? It would be interesting to hear of it.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: steve [mailto:steve@relicore.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:23 PM
To: 'Ted Lemon'
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Failover: poolreq message secondary-only?

Given what we have, leases flow to the primary, as they get assigned.

What you propose would allow the primary to reclaim some of the un-used
backup
pool during normal operation.

I believe the current protocol already allows for this during
synchronization.
After the primary received all updates from the secondary, it can safely set
the status of any "backup" lease to "free", because the backup is not
running
until the synchronization is complete.

All said, what you propose is useful and worth doing.

/sg

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@nominum.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:32 PM
To: steve@relicore.com
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Failover: poolreq message secondary-only?

> Leases should belong to either the primary or the backup,
> regardless of their status ( free, active, abandoned...).
>
> This would be conceptually much cleaner.

Good heavens, that wasn't what I was proposing at all.   That would require
a complete rewrite of the spec, which is out of the question.   I'm just
asking for the restriction that only the secondary can send poolreq, and
the primary send poolresp, be removed.

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