RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02
"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 01 September 2004 01:39 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22046; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2Jyn-0007dv-NN; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:32:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2JuI-0006mC-ER for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:27:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21413 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2JwN-00056n-4o for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:29:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i811QpUu020159; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-2-207.cisco.com [10.86.242.207]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id ALF64703; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
To: 'Stig Venaas' <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>, 'Joe Quanaim' <jdq@lucent.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:50 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <000001c48fc2$c1a09310$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.5709
In-Reply-To: <20040831121401.GN2203@sverresborg.uninett.no>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stig: I agree with Ted (in response to your message) that the server SHOULD warn if the time is below the minimum. I don't agree with you that the client should just ignore the option if the value is below the minimum - it should use the minimum. I'd follow the convention used in RFC 3315 to declare 0xffffffff as infinity. 0 isn't special - though as it is below the minimum, the minimum would be used. - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Stig Venaas > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:14 AM > To: Joe Quanaim > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02 > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 08:54:09AM -0400, Joe Quanaim wrote: > > > > Stig Venaas wrote: > > > | A client MUST also use the default refresh time > IRT_DEFAULT if it > > > | receives the option with value less than 600. > > > > > > Do you agree with a minimum like this? It should make it > harder to > > > do bad things, and I don't see a use for <10 minutes. If > <600, would > > > you rather use 600 than IRT_DEFAULT? > > > > I think a minimum is a good idea, but it probably should > not be reset > > to 24 > > hours. That's probably not what an admin intended by > setting the value that > > low. > > I agree sort of. For the protocol, I like the idea of totally > ignoring option with invalid value though, which means using > the default. The server implementation should perhaps give > the administrator a warning, or send 600 rather than the > configured value. > > We could also do what you suggest though. Other opinions? > > > Also, are 0 or 0xffffffff a special case like elsewhere in > dhcpv6? I > > am not > > sure it's necessary; I am just bringing up the point. > > I think it infinity could potentially be useful, but > 0xffffffff is in practice infinity anyway. > > If we leave it out now, we can still add it later if we want. > > Stig > > _______________________________________________ > 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
- RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… matthew.ford
- [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifeti… Stig Venaas
- RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Tim Chown
- RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… matthew.ford
- Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Stig Venaas
- Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Joe Quanaim
- Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Stig Venaas
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc-lifetime-02: minimum value Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-li… Bernie Volz
- [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Interop event - last call Cristian Cadar