RE: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question

I believe that right now the DCHP protocol is growing to include more
than just the IP address but to fulfill the name 'Dynamic Host
Configuration'. As with time the distinction between configuration and
provisioning is getting blurred. If you look into the recent DHCP work
you can see this happening we have Relay Agent Options (and suboptions),
User Class Option, Lease Query. It is my impression is that even though
the IP addressing issues are central to the DHCP supplied information
the configuration extends beyond just IP. The real issue is that should
we start to think about correcting/adding to the RFC such that the
protocol would be extended to include more and more
configuration/provisioning syntax. 

In short, even though we do not see any problems today with the DHC
protocol, we need to think ahead.

-burcak

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:41 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP_DECLINE question

> In my opinion, a client is within the spec if it sends a DHCPRELEASE 
> immediately after receiving a DHCPACK (for whatever reason).  The 
> DHCPRELEASE will terminate the lease and make the address available
for 
> reassignment without causing the server to mark the address as "not to
be 
> assigned".

True.

> There is still the open question of whether we want to *recommend*
this 
> behavior...

Right.   I'd say we shouldn't, because in all likelihood it's going to 
result in the client looping behavior about which Barr is concerned.
I 
think that we are trying to fix a nonexistant problem here, and the fix 
seems much worse than the problem, particularly since I've never
observed 
the problem happening in real life.

_______________________________________________
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