Re: [dhcwg] Bulk Leasequery for DHCPv6

["Marcus Goller" <mgoller at gmail.com>]

Hi,

After a first quick read through, this sounds like a useful extension to the existing Leasequery mechanism. Would you mind quickly summarizing the reasons why supporting this with UDP queries would make the protocol too complicated? 
I agree that TCP is probably the better choice, but I would at least like to see UDP as an optional transport mechanism. The reason for this is that I am not convinced that protocol specific options (query types) should be dependent on the underlying transport protocol. The requestor should be able to choose the appropriate protocol. But I might underestimate the impact to the existing UDP based Leasequery specification, so any additional information would be appreciated.

Regards,

Marcus

On 10/15/07, Mark Stapp <mjs at cisco.com> wrote:

Hello, all,

I've just submitted a new draft proposing a TCP-based leasequery for
DHCPv6. This is sort of a follow-on after the discussion in the WG that
led to the simplification of the current UDP-based leasequery in
rfc5007. Those discussions removed some elements of leasequery for v6
that had tried to use UDP to manage large result sets. There were folks
who felt that those elements were awkward, and overly complicated the
core query protocol. This new draft is an attempt to specify some
extensions to the leasequery protocol and use TCP as the transport in
order to support large result sets.

I'd be very happy to hear feedback about the draft, and I'm planning to
ask that it become a WG draft eventually.

Here's a url:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stapp-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-00.txt

Thanks,
Mark

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg