Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:05:48 -0600

And, ARP refreshes only work if the two devices (access + client) are on the
same physical network segment. That's I think one other reason ARP isn't a good
solution for this.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Kinnear [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:59 PM
To: Ted Lemon; Kim Kinnear
Cc: [email-masked]; Ralph Droms; Thomas Narten
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Leasequery: should it be standardized?

At 03:30 PM 2/26/2003, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>If you believe that there is any value in standardizing the
>>leasequery capability, please at least respond to this list ASAP
>>with your positive support.
>
>Yes, DHCPLEASEQUERY is a good thing, and I support it.   I don't know how to address Thomas' complaints about its relevance to the WG charter - perhaps it should be advanced in some other WG, or independent of a WG - but it's certainly a good idea, and certainly whether or not there is some other WG in which it need also be discussed, it was highly appropriate to raise it here, since it is an extension to DHCP, and this is where the DHCP expertise is concentrated.

        Thanks.  Of course I agree, or I would never    
        have bothered to spend time on it.

>My recollection, though, was that back in the beginning of all this, DHCPLEASEQUERY was about providing a way to refresh the ARP cache of a concentrator without having to broadcast an ARP request to every one of the concentrator's ports.   Is that no longer the case?

        Strangely, that was never actually the reason that I
        thought we were doing leasequery.  ARP is mentioned in
        the draft as an inadequate solution to recovering IP
        address <-> MAC address relationships originally
        discovered by DHCP "gleaning".  Perhaps that is
        synonymous with refreshing the ARP cache.  Certainly that
        involves the same information, but perhaps the use to
        which an ARP cache is put is not the same as the use to
        which the IP address <-> MAC address relationships
        discovered from DHCP gleaning is to be put.

        Cheers -- Kim

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:26:29 -0600

> same physical network segment. That's I think one other reason ARP 

The other thing that I recall, that I left out of my original message, 
is that it can be handy for concentrators to have access to the relay 
agent information option associated with a particular IP address, so 
that they can know on which circuit to send a packet to that client, 
again without checking all the circuits to see to which circuit the 
client is connected.

Thomas, I don't know how you'd solve this problem without DHCP.   As we 
get away from DHCP to access control, I agree that it could be a 
problem, but the basic function of this draft isn't access control - 
it's querying the DHCP server.   I don't know why there's even a reason 
to mention access control in the problem statement.