RE: [dhcwg] dhc-server-mib

"Barr Hibbs" <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Fri, 30 May 2003 20:41 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27128 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:41:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4UKf4I04310 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:41:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UKf4B04307 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:41:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27120 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:41:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lqen-0001GP-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:39:21 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lqem-0001GM-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:39:20 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UKdNB04187; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:39:23 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UKa2B03181 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:36:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26996 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:35:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LqZu-0001EH-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:34:18 -0400
Received: from smtp017.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.114]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LqZu-0001E7-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:34:18 -0400
Received: from adsl-64-169-89-159.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO BarrH63p601) (rbhibbs@pacbell.net@64.169.89.159 with login) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 May 2003 20:35:57 -0000
Reply-To: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
From: Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
To: Arvanitis Kostas <arvanit@ellemedia.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc-server-mib
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 13:27:12 -0700
Message-ID: <KIEPLODFDDAMBAJNDFPCOEDJFFAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200305271521.35324.arvanit@ellemedia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arvanitis Kostas
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 05:22
>
*** Snip! ***
>
> 1. In the MIB, two notifications are defined, namely
> "dhcpv4ServerFreeAddressLow" and "dhcpv4ServerFreeAddressHigh", that deal
> with the free address count in shared nets. However, shared nets
> are stated
> as optional in the MIB, since some DHCP servers may not implement them.
> Shouldn't they be named something more specific, such as
> "dhcpv4SharedNetFreeAddressLow" and "dhcpv4SharedNetFreeAddressHigh"?
>
> 2. There are no notifications defined for subnets, although the required
> fields exist and are marked as "accessible-for-notify". Shouldn't
> there be
> "dhcpv4SubnetFreeAddressLow" and "dhcpv4SubnetFreeAddressHigh"
> definitions?
>

This design was based on practical experience with a widely deployed server,
in particular an implementation with tens of thousands of clients on
thousands of subnets.  Basically, trying to track the address counts to the
subnet level is both misleading and futile.  Most servers of which I'm aware
(and certainly the one on which this MIB design was based) do NOT allocate
leases by subnet, but rather by shared network

Suppose shared network A is composed of 3 subnets.  Using some opaque
algorithm, leases are assigned, and clients randomly return addresses,
eventually leaving a configuration that is largely non-deterministic based
on the starting conditions.  Shared network A may have 40% free leases,
although subnetwork 1 has only 3% free, while subnetwork 2 has 60% free, and
subnetwork 3 has 57% free.  It's important to only report counts that are
significant, and the impending unavailability of free leases on subnetwork 1
does NOT affect the ability of a typical server to hand out addresses for
shared network A, so I would argue that reporting counts by the subnet is
misleading, as it does not reflect the ability of the server to operate
correctly, and futile, because there is no control or action the
administrator can take to affect the count.

Hope that explanation helps.

--Barr

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