Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 15:33 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12612 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:33:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA00725 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:33:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00079; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:26:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA00047 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:26:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12225 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:26:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dce.india.hp.com (dce.india.hp.com [15.10.45.122]) by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D368E000D9; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from vijayak@localhost) by dce.india.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id UAA02782; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:59:28 +0530 (IST)
From: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <200201231529.UAA02782@dce.india.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
To: rdroms@cisco.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:59:27 +0530
Cc: vijayak@india.hp.com, Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020121144941.0324ff90@funnel.cisco.com> from Ralph Droms at Jan "21, " 2002 "02:53:49" pm
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.2 $]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I disagree that DHCPv4 requires that a server explicitly reserve an address > it has offered to a client. From RFC2131: > > 3.1 Client-server interaction - allocating a network address > > [...] > > 2. Each server may respond with a DHCPOFFER message that includes an > available network address in the 'yiaddr' field (and other > configuration parameters in DHCP options). Servers need not > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > reserve the offered network address, although the protocol will > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > work more efficiently if the server avoids allocating the offered > network address to another client. When allocating a new address, > servers SHOULD check that the offered network address is not > already in use; e.g., the server may probe the offered address > with an ICMP Echo Request. Servers SHOULD be implemented so that > network administrators MAY choose to disable probes of newly > allocated addresses. The server transmits the DHCPOFFER message > to the client, using the BOOTP relay agent if necessary. I agree that it does not say the server must reserve address while offering. But it says that if it does, then the protocol is more efficient. These things are practised and went well in DHCPv4. Then, what is the harm in making this as mandatory in DHCPv6. I feel that best practises in V4 should be mandated in V6. Anyhow, the client is going to wait collecting Advertise message. If the server processes the client requirements and allocate necessary options to the clients in advetise message, then the response time for the client's REQUEST will be very good, thus increasing the efficiency of the whole protocol itself. In the realtime situation, most of the solicit messages will be followed by request message. If it doesn't send request also, there is a time knob for these OFFERED addresses, once it expires, it will be put in general pool for allocation to other clients. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Jim Bound
- Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft Martin Stiemerling
- [dhcwg] Question on DHCPv6 Draft 23. Paul Tan