Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: One more question

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 19:22:09 -0500

I do too but sadly there are cases when a server might not know who's
information the client is using.

So, if the server sends msg-type = RENEW the result is problematic
depending on which server the client last communicated with. If the
server sends msg-type = REBIND, it opens itself up to perhaps
communicating with others servers.

This would result in most servers having to send msg-type REBIND since
they couldn't rely on RENEW. 

It is easy to see why this problem can exist -- if there are multiple
servers that respond to a client's REBIND request, none of the servers
can know which response (REPLY) the client accepted.

So, for this reason I think it best to specify msg-type=RENEW and let
the client send either a RENEW (if RECONFIGURE server-identifier matches
what it currently has for the binding(s)) or a REBIND (otherwise).

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:03 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: Ted Lemon; [email-masked]; Shengyou Zeng (szeng); Ralph 
> Droms (rdroms); D. R. Evans
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: One more question
> 
> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:00:36 -0500, 
> >>>>> "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]> said:
> 
> > I'd certainly be OK with REBIND and agree that makes more sense.
> 
> > Do we change 3315 to allow REBIND as the msg-type in the Reconfigure
> > option? Or leave it RENEW and change the text to state if the client
> > receives an authenticated RECONFIGURE message from a server 
> other than
> > the one it "negotiated" the binding with, it should send a 
> REBIND (not a
> > RENEW).
> 
> I prefer the former since it's less confusing.  We'll need some change
> to 3315 for either approach anyway, so I don't see the benefit of
> overriding the existing msg-type.
> 
> 					JINMEI, Tatuya
> 					Communication Platform Lab.
> 					Corporate R&D Center, 
> Toshiba Corp.
> 					[email-masked]
> 

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 01:23:23 -0700

I think what you are proposing is an optimization, Bernie.   That is, the 
downside to doing a REBIND every time is that in some cases it creates 
slightly more work, but the outcome is still correct.   Whereas putting 
intelligence in the client to decide complicates the client a bit, and 
increases the likelihood of non-conforming implementations which actually 
behave incorrectly, in order to avoid the slightly less optimal behavior.

I don't see any reason to think that it's worth making the client more 
complicated here.   I think that what Jinmei proposes is the right answer.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 07:41:37 -0500

I would prefer to extend RFC 3315 to allow the server to specify Rebind
as well as Renew (and Information-request).

Any volunteers to write up a one-pager draft for this extension?

- Ralph

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:25:37 -0500

Just to be clear, I expressed my preference with my WG chair hat off,
and asked about a volunteer with my WG chair hat on...

- Ralph