RE: [dhcwg] Lease Query to multiple servers
"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Sat, 08 March 2003 00:36 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 TAA19445; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:36:39 -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 h280mCO00363; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:48:12 -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 h280knO32642 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:46:49 -0500
Received: from snowmass.tci.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19244 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:34:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mms01-relayb.tci.com (mms01-relayb.broadband.att.com [147.191.90.1]) by snowmass.tci.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h280abH1018275; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:36:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 147.191.89.201 by mms01-relayb.tci.com with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.0)); Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:36:26 -0600
Received: by entexchimc02.broadband.att.com with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id <F4P0YN72>; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:35:57 -0700
Message-ID: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC056637B3@entmaexch02.broadband.att.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: "'Hazon, Dan'" <dan.hazon@terayon.com>
cc: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Lease Query to multiple servers
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:36:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID: 1277E4801221932-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dan, I agree that it makes sense to specify what happens when the relay agent/access concentrator receives multiple responses to the Lease Query message, and the responses don't agree. In fact, I think that section 6.7 of the draft attempts to address this problem: When using the DHCPLEASEQUERY message in an environment where multi- ple DHCP server may contain authoritative information about the same IP address (such as when failover [FAILOVER] is operating), there could be some difficulty in deciding which results are the most use- ful if two servers respond with DHCPLEASEKNOWN messages to the same query. In this case, the client-last-transaction-time can be used to decide which server has more recent information concerning the IP address returned in the "ciaddr" field. However, I don't agree with the statement below that "If more then one DHCP server claims it has an active lease it should be logged as an error condition, none of the replies should be used..." I believe this action is less-than-ideal when the DHCP server is queried in the middle of a DHCP Failover update. The primary DHCP server presumably has up-to-date lease information, and the secondary DHCP server might have stale information before receiving the BNDUPD message for the lease. This particular situation may persist for some time in Failover's COMMUNICATIONS-INTERRUPTED or PARTNER-DOWN states. In fact, if the primary DHCP server is down, the secondary DHCP server may have the up-to-date lease information. If the relay agent chooses to use none of the Lease Query replies, then temporary Failover-related glitches cause one of two undesirable outcomes: 1. The access concentrators drops traffic with legitimate source IP addresses. 2. The access concentrators can no longer detect and drop traffic with illegitimate source IP addresses. -- Rich -----Original Message----- From: Hazon, Dan [mailto:dan.hazon@terayon.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:39 PM To: 'dhcwg@ietf.org' Subject: [dhcwg] Lease Query to multiple servers This comment is regarding the document <draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-04.txt> There at the end of section 6.2 it says: "The DHCPLEASEQUERY message MAY be sent to more than one DHCP server, and in the absence of information concerning which DHCP server might possess authoritative information concerning the IP address, it SHOULD be sent to all DHCP servers configured for the associated relay agent (if any are known)." Yet the document does not suggest what should a BOOTP Relay Agent do with multiple answers, (possibly contradicting) from different servers. My view is the following: Active lease should be considered first if there is no active lease then a reservation may be used. If more then one DHCP server claims it has an active lease it should be logged as an error condition, none of the replies should be used, and the information should be logged to avoid frequent query of the same. I think a short paragraph clearing this scenario is required the same way the scenario of no response is discussed in section 6.6 Does it make sense? Dan _______________________________________________ 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
- [dhcwg] Lease Query to multiple servers Hazon, Dan
- RE: [dhcwg] Lease Query to multiple servers Woundy, Richard