Re: dhc-addr-notification: input required on the client behaviour
"Sheng JIANG" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dhc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
+1. It is the right choice. It has to stop somewhere. We cannot give infinitely consideration to the corner cases with little possibilities. I should make the major cases covered well and avoid too much complexities. Cheers, Sheng JIANG >+1. Avoiding a small amount of extra multicast traffic in these unusual >situations (misconfiguration, rollback) doesn't seem worth complicating the >implementation and increasing the risk of implementation bugs. > >If the network has really serious problems with these packets (e.g., DHCPv6 >server catches fire when it receives them) then relying on implementations >not to send them doesn't seem like a good strategy anyway. > >On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:42 AM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:07 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:15 AM Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Would the group be OK if -08 contains Bernie's proposal? >>>> >>>> Not speaking for the group, obviously, but I think this is the right >>> choice. Anything else is an unnecessarily complicated protocol fix to a >>> configuration mistake. >>> >> >> >> Yup / +1. >> If the "failure mode" was more harmful then I'd have a different view, but >> seeing as it is a trivial amount of traffic (and in a weird corner case), I >> think that it's the right solution…. >> >> W >> >> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg