[ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) Optionsfor DHCPv6

[Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)]

The beauty of offering IP address instead of FQDN is that you totally
control your client.
You don't let any room for interpretation of the result of the
subsequent DNS query in the DHCP Client.

Benoit 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at fugue.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:58 PM
> To: Brian Utterback
> Cc: Danny Mayer; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel); 
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org; dhcwg at ietf.org; Richard Gayraud (rgayraud)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: [ntpwg] Network Time Protocol (NTP) 
> Optionsfor DHCPv6
> 
> On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 09:07 -0500, Brian Utterback wrote:
> > That having been said, I would like to see a way to pass a 
> FQDN as an 
> > option, perhaps passing both. Then you could have logic 
> like "Here's 
> > both, use the name if you can, and use the address if you must."
> 
> An option in a protocol that produces no different behavior 
> is just an opportunity for interoperability problems.
> 
> This is actually an old discussion.   Danny's position isn't 
> unheard of,
> but the fact is that there's really no way in which this 
> option is different from the other fifty options that tell 
> DHCP clients how to contact servers.
> 
> There's no reason why this option should use FQDNs while the 
> other fifty use IP addresses, and there are a number of good 
> reasons not to send FQDNs, the first and most obvious of 
> which is that they take up more space in the packet, and 
> space in the packet is very limited.
>