Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) Options for DHCPv6

[Brian Utterback <[e-mail]>]

Dave, I think you misunderstood. By saying the "hard-coded address"
sceanrio as "not very likely" I meant that a DHCP caused fiasco like
the Netgear/Wisc. one was not likely, even if IP addresses are supplied
in the DHCP field. In other words, we are once again in violent
agreement here.

David L. Mills wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Trying to put out fires when the network is burning is a good excercise 
> in fault containment. When the DNS is broken and the repair party 
> arrives, it's good to know the gateway works even if DNS doesn't. I'm 
> not sure this exactly applies to NTP, but I sure would like to see the 
> NTP servers options include hard coded addresses.
> 
> Dave
> 
> Brian Utterback wrote:
> 
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> There is *no* avantage to not sending a FQDN and plenty of disadvantages
>>> to not doing so.
>>> Would you like a list of vendors who have hardcoded IP addresses into
>>> their devices without
>>> permission of the operator of that NTP server causing headaches for not
>>> just the owner of the
>>> NTP Server but also for the users of those devices? The NTP reference
>>> implementation expects
>>> the existence of a resolver so you haven't gained anything.
>>>
>> As already noted, there is an advantage, namely that the client does
>> not have to have a resolver. And even if the reference implementation
>> requires one (Is that really true? Even if no name resolution is
>> required?) DHCP should remain implementation agnostic.
>>
>> As far the "hard coded address" problem goes, I don't see that
>> scenario as very likely. DHCP clients don't tend to remain up
>> for very long periods. And you don't have the same IP addresses
>> being served by thousands of DHCP servers. The thing to be careful
>> of is that the DHCP server not be embedded and replicated with hard
>> coded addresses, not that the clients only get IP addresses.
>>
>> That having been said, I would like to see a way to pass a FQDN
>> as an option, perhaps passing both. Then you could have logic
>> like "Here's both, use the name if you can, and use the address if
>> you must."
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg

-- 
blu

"You've added a new disk. Do you want to replace your current
drive, protect your data from a drive failure or expand your
storage capacity?" - Disk management as it should be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg