Re: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 - Respond by August 9, 2013!
Krzysztof Gierłowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed, 04 September 2013 10:56 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D5121E80B0 for <email@example.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYjepNlK8-GF for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunrise.pg.gda.pl (sunrise.pg.gda.pl [22.214.171.124]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E841D11E819B for <email@example.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydra (knot3201.eti.pg.gda.pl [126.96.36.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by sunrise.pg.gda.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r84AttUG018114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:55:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Krzysztof_Gier=B3owski?= <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:53:08 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.90.2, clamav-milter version 0.90.2 on 188.8.131.52
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 - Respond by August 9, 2013!
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:56:06 -0000
Hello, I am a researcher from Gdansk University of Technology where we are highly interested in current IPv6-related developments. Reading draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 and following associated comments, a procedure for initiating communication between primary and secondary server (5.1) caught my attention. It would seem to me, that approach in which secondary server connects to primary would provide easier management, by allowing administrator to activate/deactivate/change (for example within a predefined group) secondary server without the need to specifically reconfigure and reinitialize the primary one. I am aware that the proposed approach is based on failover draft for DHCPv4, but what is the rationale for such choice? Also some minor editorial comments: 4.1 - the statement "In each state a server may be either responsive (.) or unresponsive (.)." seem to suggest that these two possibilities are valid for each given state server can be in. "Depending on its current state a server may be either responsive (.) or unresponsive (.)"? 6 - "This allocation algorithm assumes that available resources are split between primary and secondary servers as well." -> "This allocation algorithm also assumes that available resources are split between primary and secondary servers." Best regards, Krzysztof Gierlowski
- [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dh… Krzysztof Gierłowski