Subject: FW: [dhcwg] Failover (whee)

From: "Steve Gonczi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:26:21 -0700

Greets David,

A few years ago, I posted on the DHC Wg list,
somewhat dovetailing with the direction I discern from your post.

I consider it undesirable to cycle leases through the primary,
as part of the normal lease life cycle.

I also believe that lease lifecycle stages should be 
Distinct and independent of lease ownership status.

If a lease becomes "free", the server who issued it, 
Should be able to retain it in its pool(s) unless there is 
A deliberate action to change the ownership of the lease.

If we had the above 2 aspects cleanly separated, a lease could be
transferred from one server to another, regardless of the life cycle 
stage it is in.
(the transfer(s), of course could be initiated By either server) 

I would also like to see ownership management possibly 
based on the Load Balancing rfc, or some similar hashing concept,
e.g. transferring HBA-s to transfer ownership.

I try to keep this short, because I find that long posts, 
sometimes lead to passionate (and often fruitless) 
debate by folks who do not read the whole post.

At the time this was discussed on this list I could not quite 
Comprehend the objections and reasoning why the separation of 
Ownership and lease status was a bad idea. It crossed my mind
that some folks (heaven forbid) may have a shipping product
based on some variant of the draft, and have to deal with 
a tested code base, installed customer base etc...
That _would_ explain reluctance to change anything non-trivial 
in the Draft. ;-)

Best luck & wishes,
Steve Gonczi

BTW. These are strictly my own views, not representing in any shape or 
Form my Employer's

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