RE: [dhcwg] proxy host name removal
"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Thu, 07 November 2002 22:48 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16778 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:48:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA7MoHB27681 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:50:17 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7MoHv27678 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:50:17 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16714 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:47:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7Mm7v27562; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:48:07 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7Mjqv27453 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:45:52 -0500
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16513 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:43:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mr6.exu.ericsson.se (mr6att.ericy.com [138.85.224.157]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA7MjjW24364; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:45:45 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.39]) by mr6.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA7MjjS14948; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:45:45 -0600 (CST)
Received: by eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <WCRT1GC6>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:45:45 -0600
Message-ID: <A1DDC8E21094D511821C00805F6F706B0499F984@eamrcnt715.exu.ericsson.se>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: 'Carl Smith' <Carl.Smith@eng.sun.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] proxy host name removal
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:44:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C286AF.41C040B4"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
Carl: Haven't yet looked at your revised draft, but is there a use case where this would be desired? And, is it really removal of the information after a period of time (but before the address is released) that is desired or not having it entered in the first place? I don't see a case where this would be needed at present, but perhaps someone will present a good case? I do agree with you that using the FQDN option is the best way to go. Especially considering that if the client needs to renew after it has requested the removal of the DNS information, it would want to make sure that the information isn't added again on a subsequent renewal. Perhaps we could consider two bits in the FQDN flags fields? But this may be overkill? No A desired (remove A) No RR desired (remove RR) We'd also need to define how these interact with the "N" bit and whether we could even consider using that bit in a new way? - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Carl Smith [mailto:Carl.Smith@eng.sun.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:57 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] proxy host name removal One of the items that needs clarification for the Host Options Considerations draft is the removal of host name <-> IP address updates. Specifically, is there a way for a client to ask a DHCP server to remove an update without giving up its lease? Two suggestions were made at the Minneapolis meeting: either the client should send a zero-length host name or a new bit in the FQDN option flags field could be allocated to convey the request. There was no concensus at the WG meeting on the need for such a facility, so I'm polling the mailing list to see whether it's felt we should pursue this further. Personally, I believe that if a way of doing it is to be offered, we should not change the way the Host Name option is used but instead use the FQDN option to express the request. Carl _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] proxy host name removal Carl Smith
- RE: [dhcwg] proxy host name removal Bernie Volz (EUD)