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

[David W. Hankins]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:10:11AM -0500, Mark Stapp wrote:
> very long, a client who got NTP addresses and found itself having 
> trouble with them all could also use the INFORMATION-REQUEST message to 
> check whether the addresses were still valid, outside of the normal 
> renewal timers.

We have at least one DHCPv4 client that does this, and it is not
adviseable.  I don't want to get into a nuts and bolts 'thing' for
the NTP people, we can talk about that on DHC separately if you like.

The short version of my opinion is that it's preferrable to renew
early, if you take any special action at all.  If the operator
selects a long lease time, without specifying a short renew time,
they are selecting this behaviour by design.  So an even better
interpretation is to just wait the normal renew interval, even it
is terribly long.

No special action is best by far.

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil?	 https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/attachments/20071121/d17ca888/attachment.bin