Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:11:48 -0600
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021108112530.03d7f810@funnel.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <2A7B85D7-F33D-11D6-9BDA-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Why not just have the server set the renewal time on the packet to the 
shortest TTL in the packet?   Why does the client even need to know 
this, since what it's going to have to do to refresh the information is 
to renew the lease anyway.   And if we do it this way, does it need to 
be a protocol issue?

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg