Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Results of WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 - Respond by August 9, 2013!

From: Krzysztof Gierłowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:53:08 +0200

Hello,
I am a researcher from Gdansk University of Technology where we are highly
interested in current IPv6-related developments.
Reading draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 and following associated
comments, a procedure for initiating communication between primary and
secondary server (5.1) caught my attention.
It would seem to me, that approach in which secondary server connects to
primary would provide easier management, by allowing administrator to
activate/deactivate/change (for example within a predefined group) secondary
server without the need to specifically reconfigure and reinitialize the
primary one. I am aware that the proposed approach is based on failover
draft for DHCPv4, but what is the rationale for such choice?

Also some minor editorial comments:
4.1 - the statement "In each state a server may be either responsive (.) or
unresponsive (.)." seem to suggest that these two possibilities are valid
for each given state server can be in. "Depending on its current state a
server may be either responsive (.) or unresponsive (.)"?
6 - "This allocation algorithm assumes that available resources are split
between primary and secondary servers as well." -> "This allocation
algorithm also assumes that available resources are split between primary
and secondary servers."

Best regards,
Krzysztof Gierlowski