RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option

Either could work.

I think the reason time is more interesting is that usually you want to guarantee some response within a fixed time. Retransmission numbers don't reflect how long the client may have been waiting (though there is some reasonable mapping based on the retransmission algorithm).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:12 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Elapsed Time option

> 22.9. Elapsed Time

>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |      OPTION_ELAPSED_TIME      |           option-len          |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |          elapsed-time         |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
>       option-code   OPTION_ELAPSED_TIME (8)
> 
>       option-len    2.
> 
>       elapsed-time  The amount of time since the client began its
>                     current DHCP transaction.  This time is expressed in
>                     hundredths of a second (10^-2 seconds).

Would it make sense to change this option to carry the retransmission
number rather than an actual time? I.e., backup servers would respond
only on (say) a retransmission?

I understand this to be a holdover from DHC. But if the goal is to
provide backup servers info on when they should respond, the
retransmission count might be more useful than the elapsed time.

Thoughts?

Thomas

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