Re: [dhcwg] Bulk Leasequery for DHCPv6

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

On 10/16/07, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:

On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Marcus Goller wrote:
> Another option, in my opinion, would be to introduce an new status
> code ("UnsupportedTransportLayer" or something similar) to indicate
> to the requestor that another protocol has to be used for this
> query type. That would also allow the DHCP server vendors to decide
> whether to allow UDP based query types on TCP, if not ruled out by
> your draft.

Generally speaking, doing it one way is better than doing it two
ways.    I think using TCP for something like this makes a lot of
sense - is there some reason why you are arguing for UDP?

I am not specifically arguing *for* UDP. I fully agree that using TCP makes totally sense here. I just think that a query type should not implicitly require a certain transport mechanism, it should be as independent as possible. If it requires a certain underlying protocol, then the protocol should allow to tell the requestor what is supported (or what not). This is not an issue if the specification only defines one transport layer, but if the requirements change, the protocol should be adopted accordingly. To me it would not seem very clean to specifiy message type A,B and C to be allowed only over UDP for example, D, E and F only over TCP, if it could be avoided.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg