Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-00.txt

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Tue, 22 October 2013 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10F311E8225 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rt0OradkKyzU for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81D111E81F4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1148; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1382465122; x=1383674722; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QOn0PGIbq5WUVptGp7d3zIhHqdaR91CKU2pqddy6lHM=; b=XyjMNKTW1ZlaSe55TgtWpjKNPiq0cwwwyM9ff3j1pKfBy2+i8Ur4PsGq wJ1iclOQhZBZknlDtNABIdF+AdyFm6soeLFeTH7PsA7UQxDDuafQgqycP yD35zPcbXxh/YTCEUtbpLkIxtbrZN6p0QYUgwS5XepN7VUIsSn1DboOYX g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFAKG9ZlKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL5KgSgWdIIlAQEBBHkSAQgYClYlAgQOBQiHfg26ZI8dMQeDH4EKA5k4kFiDJIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,549,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="275239386"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2013 18:05:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9MI5LLr003327 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:05:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.27]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:05:21 -0500
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOztr9CyHJhGQ69kaVnq/uHEmJSpoAa4KAgACt74D//6nFgIAAdpkA//+pfgA=
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:05:21 +0000
Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040B73C8C1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1E66764-33AD-4711-8D9F-127528DE6B67@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.21.101.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <4EF2C8BB281A2240AC70700B7F3A6A88@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:05:28 -0000

Good that we converged. My suggestion would be to use SIP Servers as an
example of something that should be passed as FQDN (assuming there is a
good reason for a deployment). We can then mention the benefits for client
in terms of Load balancing and failure.

We can replace the SIP option by something that should be returned as an
IP address, for example http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5192

Thanks,

Reinaldo

On 10/22/13 9:14 AM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

>On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)"
><repenno@cisco.com> wrote:
>> [RP] But this draft gives as example in section 5 a DHCP server giving
>>the
>> address of a SIP server as a DHCP option.
>
>Ah, that is the key detail I was missing.   I haven't read the full draft
>in quite some time; I republished it as a working group draft with
>comments addressed, but didn't do a full review.   And my thinking about
>SIP servers and DHCP has been informed by recent discussions.
>
>You are right‹we need to find a better example to use.   I'm sorry for
>misunderstanding‹I didn't realize that this is what you were saying.
>