Re: [dhcwg] Re: [ntpwg] Network Time Protocol (NTP) Options for DHCPv6

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 19:19 -0800, Danny Mayer wrote:
>   
>> No you should be using a DNS name and not IP addresses. The client
>> then can use the DNS to lookup the name and get a bunch of IP
>> addresses. The new pool option will then configure all of them
>> (up to 10) for NTP servers.
>>     
>  
> True, but not really important, since the DHCP server is normally
> configured with a domain name, not an IP address.   So it can do the
> lookup and return those ten IP addresses to the client.   So you get the
> same effect whether you send the FQDN to the client and make it do the
> lookup, or do the lookup on the server.   The advantage of doing it on
> the server is (1) you don't have to send an FQDN, and (2) the client
> doesn't need to have a resolver.
>
>   
I have no idea what configuring the DHCP server with a domain name has
to do with anything.
The addresses of NTP servers are not related to domain names.
Furthermore by looking up the IP
addresses for the client means that the client loses flexibility of
being able to do a new lookup when
one of those NTP servers stop responding to queries. This capability is
not in the currently
implementation of the NTP reference implementation but will be there in
the next few months.
There is *no* avantage to not sending a FQDN and plenty of disadvantages
to not doing so.
Would you like a list of vendors who have hardcoded IP addresses into
their devices without
permission of the operator of that NTP server causing headaches for not
just the owner of the
NTP Server but also for the users of those devices? The NTP reference
implementation expects
the existence of a resolver so you haven't gained anything.

Danny

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg