IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) OptionsforDHCPv6

"TS Glassey" <tglassey@earthlink.net> Mon, 26 November 2007 04:15 UTC

Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwVNi-0003nc-0n; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:15:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwVNg-0003nQ-5g for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:15:36 -0500
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwVNd-00015Z-Mi for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:15:36 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=ePnvWddwGOiSPcb4Xef6OrsbRRgS8STu7DUbhQQPetYDmnecjfk/GfBds75+Rm6G; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [24.23.176.93] (helo=tsg1) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IwVNc-0001uk-I6; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:15:32 -0500
Message-ID: <01bf01c82fe2$fc8db980$6401a8c0@tsg1>
From: TS Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
To: Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org>, Brian Utterback <Brian.Utterback@Sun.COM>
References: <200711260009.lAQ092va059077@drugs.dv.isc.org> <EF06E977-C3D9-4EDF-A126-6CD888BA8F36@fugue.com> <014d01c82fc6$6b1ecd70$6401a8c0@tsg1> <5C093633-A256-4059-AA10-1800F62F522A@fugue.com> <017901c82fd4$9cad3b70$6401a8c0@tsg1> <474A3297.5040907@sun.com> <018401c82fd7$9f632c50$6401a8c0@tsg1> <474A3C32.1020006@sun.com> <474A43DB.1010009@ntp.org>
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) OptionsforDHCPv6
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:15:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79ac3504d96653ab1aa9c85441ac13d1e3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 24.23.176.93
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "Richard Gayraud (rgayraud)" <rgayraud@cisco.com>
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>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

Danny
I was trying to stay as compatible as possible, but yes in the Microsoft 
world Service Records (SRV's) are the current manner to do this.  The 
problem I see is that SRV's cannot return the key as well as the address for 
secured service lookup.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Mayer" <mayer@ntp.org>
To: "Brian Utterback" <Brian.Utterback@Sun.COM>
Cc: "TS Glassey" <tglassey@earthlink.net>; <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; 
<dhcwg@ietf.org>; "Ted Lemon" <mellon@fugue.com>; "Richard Gayraud 
(rgayraud)" <rgayraud@cisco.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) 
OptionsforDHCPv6


> Brian Utterback wrote:
>> TS Glassey wrote:
>>>
>>> I still don't know that the service is needed I have heard a couple of
>>> people mandate that they think this is necessary but in actuality I
>>> still haven't heard anything that makes this mandatory. Especially
>>> since without any pain at all its pretty easy to create a set of known
>>> NTP servers and just use the local DNS service to propagate these. WKS
>>> inside of DNS is a simple method that is time tested.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>
>> Okay, so your suggestion is to not have a DHCP NTP field at all, but to
>> have
>> the clients use WKS and DNS resolution to find servers. Fair enough.
>>
>> blu
>
> Actually SRV records are what should get used. WKS is rather obsolete.
>
> Danny 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email