[dhcwg] RE: draft-ietf-dhc-server-override-00.txt

1. This draft seems to change RFC 2131 in a (minor?) way: RFC 2131 states:
"A DHCP server always returns its own address in the 'server identifier'
option". This draft is intended to force the DHCP server to return some
other address in the 'server identifier' option. Is it OK to have 2 RFCs
conflict in this way?

2. If the relay agent forwards DHCP packets to multiple DHCP servers,
inserting the same server identifier override sub-option at all times, a
DHCP service can no longer (reliably) determine if the client is accepting
an offer that it has made, or an offer made by some other DHCP service. Does
this issue need to be addressed in this draft?

3. typo in section 5.0: "If a rouge DHCP relay " should read "If a rogue
DHCP relay" ("rouge" vs. "rogue").

Patrick Cosmo

Senior Product Engineer
Incognito Software Inc
Vancouver: (604) 688-4332 ext: 254
Toll-Free: 1-800-877-1856
http://www.incognito.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stapp [mailto:mjs@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:49 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org; olaf@ripe.net; Bernard
Aboba; Rob Austein; Thomas Narten; Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between DNS TTL and
DHCP lease length

I've replied to Patrick; I'm not quite sure what more to do with issue [6].

The draft recommends using a ttl that's a fraction of the lease time, and 
recommends removing rrs promptly when the lease expires. There have been at 
least a couple of exchanges about this over the years, and the conclusion 
has always been that it's not possible to come up with a single set of 
values that are appropriate in every situation. Also, it's not possible to 
compel updaters to perform additional updates to 'back down' rrs' ttls as a 
lease approaches its expiration - that'll kill the dns server. As I noted 
in the other email I sent, the recommendations that are in the draft are 
the most up-to-date ones that I've been offered.

We do have quite a bit of deployment experience with dhcp updates to dns, 
and this has not been an issue, as far as I can recall. I also don't recall 
any email to the wg indicating that this has been an issue in anyone else's 
experience. If someone has followed these recommendations and has found 
problems with them, then by all means let's come up with better 
recommendations.

-- Mark

At 03:11 PM 6/6/2003 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>DDNS-DHCP issue:
>
>    The RR TTLs need careful attention so that it never exceeds the
>    expiration time of the lease on the associated address.
>
>This issue was anticipated by Patrick Cosmo:
>
>On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Cosmo, Patrick wrote:
>
> > I have found some minor issues with the
> > <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-05.txt>, I apologize if they have
already
> > been brought up.
> >
> > In particular, this statement in section 5. (DNS RR TTLs) on page 5:
> >
> > "The RR TTL on a DNS record added for with a DHCP lease SHOULD NOT
exceed
> > 1/3 of the lease time, and SHOULD be at least 10 minutes."
> >
> > 1. This sentence has some bad grammar ("for with" : ... record added for
> > with a DHCP lease ...).
> >
> > 2. The statement is contradictory if the lease time is less than 30 
> minutes.
> > When the lease time is less than 30 minutes, which suggestion takes
> > precendence? : min. 10 minutes, or max or 1/3 lease time?
> >
> > 3. The section seems intended to suggest a reasonable TTL for these 
> records,
> > but doesn't seem to pull through or suggest much of anything (IMHO)
other
> > than "it should be a function of lease time, and it should be 
> configurable".
> >
> >
> > Patrick Cosmo
> >
> > Senior Product Engineer
> > Incognito Software Inc
> > Vancouver: (604) 688-4332 ext: 254
> > Toll-Free: 1-800-877-1856
> > http://www.incognito.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:36 PM
> > To: dhcwg@ietf.org; namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: [dhcwg] Issues in DDNS-DHCP interaction drafts
> >
> >
> > The following drafts have passed WG last call:
> >
> > [1] A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR)
> >     <draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-06.txt>
> >
> > [2] The DHCP Client FQDN Option
> >     <draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-05.txt>
> >
> > [3] Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts Among DHCP Clients
> >     <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-05.txt>
> >
> > Several issues regarding these drafts have been identified
> > during the AD review prior to IESG review for Proposed
> > Standard status.  I will initiate discussion threads on
> > each of these issues later today with e-mail to both
> > the dhcwg and namedroppers mailing lists.  Please respond
> > just to the dhcwg mailing list to avoid duplicate postings...
> >
> > - Ralph
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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