IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Tue, 03 August 2004 22:19 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 SAA17665; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bs7aV-0001jN-E5; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:16:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bs7R7-0005kW-3I for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:07:09 -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 SAA16302 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bs7UF-0002Qt-Pl for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:10:25 -0400
Received: from [66.93.162.248] (0127bhost250.starwoodbroadband.com [12.105.247.250]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D961B24B0; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:06:18 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <y7vacxc5f3r.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
References: <y7vacxc5f3r.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <72FA02EA-E599-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] one more comment about the lifetime option
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:07:02 -0700
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
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
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

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.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email