Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged))
 by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00660
 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:05:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost)
 by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAB47KQ08519
 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:07:20 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176])
 by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAB47Kv08516
 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:07:20 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
 by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00652
 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:04:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAB44jv07903;
 Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:04:49 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176])
 by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAB43jv07879
 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:03:45 -0500
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
 by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00603
 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:01:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mr6.exu.ericsson.se (mr6att.ericy.com [138.85.224.157])
 by imr2.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gAB43aW07276;
 Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:03:36 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se
 [138.85.133.39])
 by mr6.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gAB43ZP17632;
 Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:03:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: by eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service
 (5.5.2656.59) id <WCRTHNAL>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:03:34 -0600
Message-ID: <A1DDC8E21094D511821C00805F6F706B04E764BF@eamrcnt715.exu.ericsson.se>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:02:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C28937.276B4706"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>,
 <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C28937.276B4706
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Ralph:

I assume this is for DHCPv6 (Information-Request)? Or? Would this TTL apply to Request as well? 

I would go with one TTL for all parameters (as Ted suggestions).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:12 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses


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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C28937.276B4706
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2656.60">
<TITLE>RE: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ralph:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I assume this is for DHCPv6 (Information-Request)? =
Or? Would this TTL apply to Request as well? </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I would go with one TTL for all parameters (as Ted =
suggestions).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>- Bernie</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Ted Lemon [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com">mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com</A>]<=
/FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:12 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Ralph Droms</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Why not just have the server set the renewal time on =
the packet to the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>shortest TTL in the packet?&nbsp;&nbsp; Why does the =
client even need to know </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>this, since what it's going to have to do to refresh =
the information is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>to renew the lease anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp; And if we do =
it this way, does it need to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>be a protocol issue?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>dhcwg mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>dhcwg@ietf.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
HREF=3D"https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg</A></FONT=
>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C28937.276B4706--
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


