Re: [dhcwg] Re: [ntpwg] Network Time Protocol (NTP) Options for DHCPv6

[Brian Utterback <[e-mail]>]

Danny Mayer wrote:

> There is *no* avantage to not sending a FQDN and plenty of disadvantages
> to not doing so.
> Would you like a list of vendors who have hardcoded IP addresses into
> their devices without
> permission of the operator of that NTP server causing headaches for not
> just the owner of the
> NTP Server but also for the users of those devices? The NTP reference
> implementation expects
> the existence of a resolver so you haven't gained anything.
> 

As already noted, there is an advantage, namely that the client does
not have to have a resolver. And even if the reference implementation
requires one (Is that really true? Even if no name resolution is
required?) DHCP should remain implementation agnostic.

As far the "hard coded address" problem goes, I don't see that
scenario as very likely. DHCP clients don't tend to remain up
for very long periods. And you don't have the same IP addresses
being served by thousands of DHCP servers. The thing to be careful
of is that the DHCP server not be embedded and replicated with hard
coded addresses, not that the clients only get IP addresses.

That having been said, I would like to see a way to pass a FQDN
as an option, perhaps passing both. Then you could have logic
like "Here's both, use the name if you can, and use the address if
you must."

-- 
blu

"You've added a new disk. Do you want to replace your current
drive, protect your data from a drive failure or expand your
storage capacity?" - Disk management as it should be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg