IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] one more comment about the lifetime option

Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com> Wed, 04 August 2004 12:33 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 IAA01374; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BsKug-0007Hm-Pu; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:30:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BsKoE-0006fZ-AX for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:23:54 -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 IAA01015 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BsKrU-0007Mr-W6 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:27:18 -0400
Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (h135-17-192-10.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i74CNknv001486; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 07:23:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kraken.mh.lucent.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id i74CNjF13579; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:23:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] one more comment about the lifetime option
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:21:23 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <y7vacxc5f3r.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <72FA02EA-E599-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <72FA02EA-E599-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408040820.24319.jdq@lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, Stig.Venaas@uninett.no
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jdq@lucent.com
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

Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2004, at 10:03 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > Is it possible to specify different lifetimes for different instances
> > of stateless information?  For example, people may want to specify
> > different lifetimes for recursive DNS server addresses and for SIP
> > server addresses.
>
> I think the amount of work the server has to do to make this happen is
> more than the amount of work that is saved.   That is, you're going to
> have to process an Information Request packet every time anything on
> the client expires.   And figuring out that you only need to send
> certain options, and not certain others, is more work than just sending
> what you have.   So I think that not only is it not necessary to have
> different lifetimes for different options, it's actually harmful to
> have them.

Per option lifetimes also make client implementations more complicated.  
Furthermore, they have the potential to cause more dhcpv6 traffic for 
everyone.

Joe Quanaim.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email