RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?

"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Tue, 11 March 2003 15:02 UTC

Message-ID: <A1DDC8E21094D511821C00805F6F706B067F5AD0@eamrcnt715.exu.ericsson.se>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: 'Erik Nordmark' <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Cc: 'Mark Stapp' <mjs@cisco.com>, Steve Gonczi <steve@relicore.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:00:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E7DE.FCADFE94"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Erik:

I don't disagree with your and Thomas' concerns, and I probably didn't read earlier dialogues carefully enough. Ralph and I spoke about this issue at Connectathon and I now understand the specific concern.

I think DHCP should be used as it is today and the lease query may be used to extract that information. If the DHCP server has information regarding client reservations (or whatever you want to call fixed address assignments), there is no reason it can not report on those exactly as it would for any other lease. Whether the client uses DHCP to obtain its information or has static configuration is immaterial - the point is the that client *COULD* use DHCP and would get the information.

In this case, as DHCP provides the client no indication that this is a reservation, I don't think lease query should either. So, I would be all for removing that indication from lease query.

I also think that lease query should not recommend steps to add these reservations to the server if there is no intention of these clients ever using DHCP. But, I also feel that lease query should not prevent someone from doing this - it should simply be silent on the issue as this is a usage issue and not a standards issue. If a vendor wants to recommend doing this (and I can see reasons why they would), they could.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:Erik.Nordmark@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:52 AM
To: Bernie Volz (EUD)
Cc: 'Mark Stapp'; Steve Gonczi; dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?


> I agree ... we don't want to restart this process. There's a lot of good
> reasons why DHCP should be used - it is after all DHCP information. The
> existing framework is fine regardless of whether the devices and
> applications already knew dhcp.

Bernie,

As I understand Thomas' concerns part of the issue is that
the draft talks about leasequery being used when there isn't a DHCP lease.
Thus it's expanded to be able to ask questions about MAC/IP addresses
in general.

I think that distinction is quite important.
Arguing that DHCP be used to query information about DHCP leases
is one thing.
Arguing that DHCP is the right protocol to use to query about MAC/IP address
related information is a rather different thing.

   Erik

RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Mark Stapp
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
Re: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Ted Lemon
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Mark Stapp
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Steve Gonczi
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Woundy, Richard
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Erik Nordmark
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Bernie Volz (EUD)
RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Woundy, Richard