Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02

Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com> Fri, 27 August 2004 13:13 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27355; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:13:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C0gRK-0003WG-BM; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:06:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C0gFH-000136-6f for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:54:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26488 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C0gGN-0000bj-71 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:55:30 -0400
Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (h135-17-192-10.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7RCsCkC007802; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:54:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kraken.mh.lucent.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id i7RCsCY01808; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:54:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
To: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:54:09 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <20040825151559.GJ5677@sverresborg.uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <20040825151559.GJ5677@sverresborg.uninett.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408270854.10485.jdq@lucent.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jdq@lucent.com
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stig Venaas wrote:
> |  A client MUST also use the default refresh time IRT_DEFAULT if it
> |  receives the option with value less than 600.
>
> Do you agree with a minimum like this? It should make it harder to
> do bad things, and I don't see a use for <10 minutes. If <600,
> would you rather use 600 than IRT_DEFAULT?

I think a minimum is a good idea, but it probably should not be reset to 24 
hours.  That's probably not what an admin intended by setting the value that 
low.

Also, are 0 or 0xffffffff a special case like elsewhere in dhcpv6?  I am not 
sure it's necessary; I am just bringing up the point.

Thanks,
Joe Quanaim.


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