Subject: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:41:17 -0500

At the last WG meeting, we talked about how to add lifetime information to 
addresses for services (for example, DNS server addresses).

So, what are the requirements?  Basically, we want to be able to inform the 
client the time over which it can expect the service address to be 
useful.  The client can then re-contact the server to confirm the continued 
validity of those addresses or find out about new service addresses.

Question - is it useful to have a separate lifetime for each service or can 
we make a simplification about lifetime information that applies to all of 
the services configured on the client?

Are there other requirements?

- Ralph

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:11:48 -0600

Why not just have the server set the renewal time on the packet to the 
shortest TTL in the packet?   Why does the client even need to know 
this, since what it's going to have to do to refresh the information is 
to renew the lease anyway.   And if we do it this way, does it need to 
be a protocol issue?

---

From: "Vijayabhaskar A K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:30:08 +0530

Ralph,

The service addresses are not likely to change frequently.
So, i feel that there is no meaning of having TTL for these
addresses and renewing them once in a while.

Already, we have a mechanism called "reconfiguration", through
which this can be accomplished. Inclusion of TTL will unnecessarily
complicate the client, as it needs to keep track of another timer,
along with the one for IAs.

I think, we can keep the option part as it is, thus, whatever
the service addresses it receive, its going to be valid for
infinite, and server will notify the change, if any, using the
reconfigure-init in course of time

~ Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] TTL on service addresses

- Ralph