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 QAA25554 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1QLGgu11434 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:16:42 -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 h1QLGgp11431 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:16:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25539 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:06:26 -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 h1QLF4p11255; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:15:04 -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 h1QLEOp11205 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:14:24 -0500 Received: from imr1.ericy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25390 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:04:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr5.exu.ericsson.se (mr5u3.ericy.com [208.237.135.124]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1QL7Sd29000; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:07:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.39]) by mr5.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1QL7SC12932; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:07:28 -0600 (CST) Received: by eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:07:28 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" To: "'Kim Kinnear'" , Ted Lemon Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Ralph Droms , Thomas Narten Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:05:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2DDDA.BE655F1E" 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: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2DDDA.BE655F1E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" And, ARP refreshes only work if the two devices (access + client) are on the same physical network segment. That's I think one other reason ARP isn't a good solution for this. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Kim Kinnear [mailto:kkinnear@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:59 PM To: Ted Lemon; Kim Kinnear Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms; Thomas Narten Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized? At 03:30 PM 2/26/2003, Ted Lemon wrote: >>If you believe that there is any value in standardizing the >>leasequery capability, please at least respond to this list ASAP >>with your positive support. > >Yes, DHCPLEASEQUERY is a good thing, and I support it. I don't know how to address Thomas' complaints about its relevance to the WG charter - perhaps it should be advanced in some other WG, or independent of a WG - but it's certainly a good idea, and certainly whether or not there is some other WG in which it need also be discussed, it was highly appropriate to raise it here, since it is an extension to DHCP, and this is where the DHCP expertise is concentrated. Thanks. Of course I agree, or I would never have bothered to spend time on it. >My recollection, though, was that back in the beginning of all this, DHCPLEASEQUERY was about providing a way to refresh the ARP cache of a concentrator without having to broadcast an ARP request to every one of the concentrator's ports. Is that no longer the case? Strangely, that was never actually the reason that I thought we were doing leasequery. ARP is mentioned in the draft as an inadequate solution to recovering IP address <-> MAC address relationships originally discovered by DHCP "gleaning". Perhaps that is synonymous with refreshing the ARP cache. Certainly that involves the same information, but perhaps the use to which an ARP cache is put is not the same as the use to which the IP address <-> MAC address relationships discovered from DHCP gleaning is to be put. Cheers -- Kim _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2DDDA.BE655F1E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?

And, ARP refreshes only work if the two devices = (access + client) are on the
same physical network segment. That's I think one = other reason ARP isn't a good
solution for this.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Kinnear [mailto:kkinnear@cisco.com]=
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:59 PM
To: Ted Lemon; Kim Kinnear
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms; Thomas = Narten
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be = standardized?


At 03:30 PM 2/26/2003, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>If you believe that there is any value in = standardizing the
>>leasequery capability, please at least = respond to this list ASAP
>>with your positive support.
>
>Yes, DHCPLEASEQUERY is a good thing, and I = support it.   I don't know how to address Thomas' complaints = about its relevance to the WG charter - perhaps it should be advanced = in some other WG, or independent of a WG - but it's certainly a good = idea, and certainly whether or not there is some other WG in which it = need also be discussed, it was highly appropriate to raise it here, = since it is an extension to DHCP, and this is where the DHCP expertise = is concentrated.

        = Thanks.  Of course I agree, or I would never    =
        have = bothered to spend time on it.


>My recollection, though, was that back in the = beginning of all this, DHCPLEASEQUERY was about providing a way to = refresh the ARP cache of a concentrator without having to broadcast an = ARP request to every one of the concentrator's ports.   Is = that no longer the case?

        Strangely, = that was never actually the reason that I
        thought = we were doing leasequery.  ARP is mentioned in
        the draft = as an inadequate solution to recovering IP
        address = <-> MAC address relationships originally
        = discovered by DHCP "gleaning".  Perhaps that is
        = synonymous with refreshing the ARP cache.  Certainly that
        involves = the same information, but perhaps the use to
        which an = ARP cache is put is not the same as the use to
        which the = IP address <-> MAC address relationships
        = discovered from DHCP gleaning is to be put.

        Cheers -- = Kim



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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2DDDA.BE655F1E-- _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg