IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Comments ondraft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id-02.txt

Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie> Thu, 08 October 2009 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742D628C272 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFQcRh42ByFA for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dakota.ucd.ie (mailhost.ucd.ie [193.1.169.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B4328C273 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from conversion-daemon.dakota.ucd.ie by dakota.ucd.ie (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) id <0KR700A01ABATZ00@dakota.ucd.ie> (original mail from Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie) for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:53:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [193.0.27.9] by dakota.ucd.ie (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0KR700B6WAOQG9A0@dakota.ucd.ie>; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:53:16 +0100 (IST)
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:53:04 +0100
From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
In-reply-to: <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A0FB036CB51@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com>
To: Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com>
Message-id: <4ACDFCD0.5030708@ucd.ie>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <9195A029-8FEE-4BFB-BF25-10AED953EC88@nominum.com> <7221E17E68B1A944ADCE8A83364DBEE61AF2CC92E6@BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com> <E2DB14A8-AAA7-4D87-866A-45B83D7F5328@nominum.com> <7221E17E68B1A944ADCE8A83364DBEE61AF2CC9B14@BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com> <82234DC4-F5C8-4BC6-8D80-39B2643CCA91@nominum.com> <7221E17E68B1A944ADCE8A83364DBEE61AFE02D6CA@BLRKECMBX01.ad.infosys.com> <83BE11C0-4D56-41D0-BD42-0C24709518FB@nominum.com> <20090818172107.GA30340@shell-too.nominum.com> <8A82D1BFEDDE7E4597978355239BBBCB2A251B@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com> <8A82D1BFEDDE7E4597978355239BBBCB2A251C@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com> <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A0F6B2E064A@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <8A82D1BFEDDE7E4597978355239BBBCB3BBF18@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com> <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A0FB036CB51@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:23:06 -0700
Cc: DHC-WG WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments ondraft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:51:37 -0000

Bharat Joshi wrote:

>  From your reply, it looks to me that adding/removing a lease forcibly 
may not be
 > the right way of doing things.


	That's an understatement.

	Forcibly removing a (server's record of a) lease breaks an
	established "contract" without notifying the other party.
	It's dangerous, as it invites duplicate use of the address,
	which may (or not) be prevented by other safety measures.

	Forcibly adding a lease asserts a "contract" which the
	other party has no knowledge of.  This is unlikely to be
	dangerous, as a conflicting request from a third party,
	received during the validity period of the "stealth"
	contract, will be refused.  It may conceivably be useful
	to do this in order to prime the server in favour of an
	anticipated request.

	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email