RE: [dhcwg] Request for review of 3315id draft...

Well, why don't we just do what we do for DHCPv6 ... add an IA (Identity
Association) Option. That way, if the client has two interfaces, it can
either chose to use two different IAs or none (in which case it may well get
the same address).

This doesn't fully solve the DNS issue, but at least it gives the server a
hint that if an IA was sent, it might not be wise for the server to wipe out
other A records that the client has (since another server may have assigned
the client a different address). The DHCP server can always look at the A
record(s) and if the target address is within its authority, it can delete
the old A record (assuming the client does not have a valid lease for the
address).

(Note that this also has the nice feature of allowing a client to get
multiple addresses if it indeed wanted to even on a single interface - why
it would ever want to do this is beyond me, but ... It's also much better
than having multiple identifiers for the client, which is what would happen
today.)

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted
Lemon
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:19 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Cc: 'Vasu, Vallabhaneni'; dhcwg@ietf.org; 'Ted Lemon'
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for review of 3315id draft...

On Jan 8, 2004, at 12:16 PM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> Also, if the client is the one that updates the A records, there's no
> problem since it knows what it wants to have happen?

Theoretically yes, but in practice I think it might actually be quite 
challenging to write a client that always does the right thing, or even 
that can be configured to always do the right thing.

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

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