Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery (DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, The IESG wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
>> (dhc) to consider the following document:
>>
>> - 'DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery '
>>  <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2008-11-03. Exceptionally,
>> comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please
>> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-04.txt
>
> First there was DHC Leasequery (RFC4388), next DHCv6 Leasequery (RFC5007), now we have DHCv6 Bulk Leasequery.  And someone seems to be proposing DHCPv4 bulk leasequery as well (draft-dtv-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery).
>
> RFC4388 S4.2 described reasons why SNMP was deemed inappropriate. And if you look at the reasoning there, some of these are not even valid anymore for bulk leasequeries.  I remain unconvinced.  A far better solution would seem to be define a smaller MIB just for querying leases so implementing it would be trivial.  Bulk leasequeries just underline the fact that SNMP and MIB data models are being reinvented inside DHCP.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

I am not an expert on SNMP, but the only way I could imagine that
working, would be by using queries for MIBs which would look like
this:

get <MIB>.<querytype>

As the query type can be a relay id, link-address or remote id, this
would look a bit strange to me. I know and use SNMP mostly for
querying specific, predefined counters or tables, not variable entries
in the MIB tree. Also all implementations I know, use UDP not TCP for
SNMP queries and replies.
The DHCPv6 Bulk Leasquery proposal looks like a logical next step to me.

Marcus
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]