[Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Mon, 27 August 2001 13:13 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16671; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19050; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:12:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA19024 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:12:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16559 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:10:46 -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 JAA19797 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:11:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:11:35 -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

(Please note that this message has been sent to the new dhc WG mailing list, dhcwg@ietf.org.  The current mailing lists, dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu and dhcp-v6@bucknell.edu, will be taken off line tomorrow, Aug 28, around 4PM.  I will arrange for e-mail to the old lists to be forwarded to dhcwg@ietf.org for a couple of months.  I will also save the archives from the old lists and make them available on line as soon as possible. - RD)

Another alternative for greater range would be to define the units of the data value to be tenths of a second.  My intuition is that tenths of a second should be sufficiently precise...

Can anyone give us the benefit of experience with the 'secs' field in DHCPv4?  There hasn't been any interest in defining a new option with greater range or precision than the current 0-255 seconds measured in seconds.  Has the range or precision in DHCPv4 been inadequate in any specific instance?

- Ralph

At 10:44 PM 8/26/2001 -0400, you wrote:

>> 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