RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05

"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 14 July 2004 12:35 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12250; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bkins-0004Xi-By; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:24:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bkij9-0002hH-W0 for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:19:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11750 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bkij9-0005W2-I0 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:19:11 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BkiiL-0005D6-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:18:22 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bkiht-0004tc-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:17:53 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2004 08:17:24 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6ECHKaG011597; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-2-109.cisco.com [10.86.242.109]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id AKC64675; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "'Steve Gonczi'" <steve@relicore.com>, <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:17:18 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <000c01c4699c$81c34810$4bfeba44@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.5709
In-Reply-To: <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKCEHHCJAA.steve@relicore.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1038720786=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

This likely isn't as a cut and dry as you assume. Does the DHCPREQUEST get
retransmitted until it is ACKed? What happens if it isn't ACKed? What
happens if it is NAK? 
 
- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Steve Gonczi
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:35 PM
To: soohong.park@samsung.com
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05


Hi Daniel,
 
I have to admit I am not entirely clear on what you meant, 
although I suspect you disagree with my suggestion.
 
Let me try to make my case:
 
For the cost of sending out one extra message by the Rapid Commit
client (which BTW does not cause any significant delay)
you could eliminate the entire 3.2 section from your protocol.
 
To recap:
 
1)  The "no multiple servers" restriction
2)  or "must have enough addresses" restriction
3)  or "use short lease times" restriction
 
Why would you not want to do this? 
 
 
/sG

-----Original Message-----
From: PARK SOO HONG [mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:54 PM
To: Steve Gonczi; soohong.park@samsung.com
Cc: Bernie Volz; dhcwg@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05



Hi Steve, thanks your comments and see my comment inline 


 

>When the Rapid commit client decides to accept an address 
>sent via a Rapid Commit ack, it should send out a DHCPREQUEST 
>(perhaps with the rapid commit option),  
>similar to the classic DHC protocol.  


 

I'd keep the original sentence since to sync the operation of DHCPv6,

also make sure this option is for *RAPID COMMIT*.

 

 

 

Regards 

 

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) 

Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics


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