[dhcwg] RE: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Mon, 27 August 2001 14:06 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19074; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:06:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20991; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:05:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20965 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:05:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18991 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:03:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-90.cisco.com []) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA25589 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:04:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:04:38 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [dhcwg] RE: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

(All - please respond through dhcwg@ietf.org. - RD)

>From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
>To: DHCPv6 discussion list <dhcp-v6@bucknell.edu>
>Subject: RE: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header 
>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:41:11 -0500
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>Reply-To: dhcp-v6@bucknell.edu
>Sender: owner-dhcp-v6@bucknell.edu
>Because it wastes several additional bytes for what I believe is very little gain. 
>Perhaps there are some bizarre future applications where we want to wait for "long" periods of time, but I can't see any value in this. What this is to be used for is failover type support (either failover protocol or just multiple servers, one which is to be used unless the other fails).
>If we're really concerned about being able to store long times, why don't we just make this seconds? I can't see any need to make the resolution 100ths of seconds and with seconds we can store many hours worth of time.
>- Bernie 
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Ted Lemon [<mailto:mellon@nominum.com>mailto:mellon@nominum.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 10:44 PM 
>To: DHCPv6 discussion list 
>Subject: Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header 
>> I think 16-bits is enough (with the counter maxing out). If an attempt goes 
>> on that long, no server is probably available and the relays (or servers) 
>> will likely long have taken alternative actions (which probably failed as 
>> well). So, I see little need to make this more than 16-bits. 
>That's a pretty set of suppositions, but you may well be wrong.   Why 
>not make sure that it works if you are? 
>                               _MelloN_ 

dhcwg mailing list