Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on "DHCP Relay AgentAssignmentNotification Option"

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 15 June 2006 02:22 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqhUy-0001JV-9m; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:20 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqhUx-0001GM-Jp for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:19 -0400
Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqhUw-0003nu-60 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:19 -0400
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5F2MHJj014386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:17 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5F2MH8b242320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:17 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5F2MHY2030438 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:17 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-131-84.mts.ibm.com [9.76.131.84]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5F2MGt6030411; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:16 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k5F2MNSZ010657; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:24 -0400
Message-Id: <200606150222.k5F2MNSZ010657@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on "DHCP Relay AgentAssignmentNotification Option"
In-reply-to: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2101BE4556@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
References: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2101BE4556@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> message dated "Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:24:10 -0400."
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:22:23 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

"Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> writes:

> > This is starting to seem more than a little bit too complicated.
> > Do we really want to add this to the protocol? I'm skeptical.

I need to think about this, as it does sound like more complexity.
However...

> It is perhaps a stretch as to how likely this is, after all Relay's have
> been gleaming this data from DHCPv4 traffic for a long time and
> generally have no issues?

Actually, if this were a problem in practice today, would we _really_
know about it, or would it just be chalked up as one of those weird
things that happens sometimes where something doesn't work for a user,
the helpdesk is clueless, and it fixes itself when the home client is
rebooted (hey, must just have been an windows problem)?

I do think we need to make our protocols fairly rock solid. Given how
this is core infrastructure, it just has to work. All the time.

Thomas

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