[e2e] TCP Option Negotiation

John Wroclawski jtw at lcs.mit.edu
Thu May 17 10:21:05 PDT 2001

At 12:53 PM -0400 5/17/01, Ralph Droms wrote:
>I've had discussions about enforcing a quiet time in DHCP - a 
>minimum delay time before reassigning an address to a new host.
>We've never heard a sufficiently strong argument to warrant adding 
>the requirement to the DHCP spec.  I don't know of any servers that 
>implement a quiet time.
>- Ralph


I thought a moment about this while I was writing the previous note. 
It seems to me that it's in fact less desirable to put this at the 
server end, because of difficulty in perfectly identifying when a 
client is "new", and perhaps because it's silly to add more dynamic 
state to a server when you don't need to.

it seems better to put the function at the client. Only the client 
knows for sure whether it has enough retained state to safely ignore 
a possible quiet time. Implementationally, it should be trivial for 
any client that implements quiet times at all to add "new DHCP 
address" to the list of things that trigger one.


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list