Subject: DHCP and SCSP

From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:10:53 -0400 (EDT)

As best I can tell, the DHCP working group started to explore the use
of SCSP to synchronize DHCP servers, but then stopped.

Can anyone provide me a summary of why the DHCP working group concluded
that SCSP wasn't the most appropriate method of synchronizing DHCP
servers?

Thanks,
	-tjs

---

From: Steve Gonczi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:08:49 -0400 (EDT)

Kim Kinnear is the best person to answer this...

As I recall, there was nothing wrong with SCSP per se, but the entire Server
to Server Protocol ( which was a multi-server protocol, with server group
management)
was set aside in favor of a much simpler approach.

sG

> ----------
> From: 	Tim Salo[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Reply To: 	[email-masked]
> Sent: 	Friday, October 09, 1998 1:15 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	DHCP and SCSP
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT)

> that SCSP wasn't the most appropriate method of synchronizing DHCP

Because it's too complicated and has a subtlely but significantly
different model of what server database synchronization means than
the model that's needed to support a DHCP interserver protocol.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:10:14 -0400 (EDT)

>that SCSP wasn't the most appropriate method of synchronizing DHCP

The WG concluded that the proposed synchronization protocol for DHCP
servers was  complex and depended on SCSP, which is, as yet, not completed.
The WG decided to pursue a simpler "failover" protocol, which provides less
function but is much less complex and can be implemented today.

- Ralph