On 6.7.2015 13.24, Steven Barth wrote:
What happens when a new router appears on the link, a new election is called, and the new
router becomes the designated DHCPv4 server -- won't address collisions occur? Perhaps
DHCPv4 service should be "sticky", in the sense that a new election isn't
called if the previously elected server is still alive.
We had this discussion already months ago I think. From what I remember
"stickiness" would solve this particular use case,
but opens up others instead in case of e.g. merging or splitting links. I'm not
sure if that discussion was on the list so you may find
it in the archives or not. IIRC it boiled down to making one case worse in
favor of another with added complexity on top.
I do not think the discussion was public, but yes, the gist is correct;
there is a tradeoff between complexity and addressing one corner case
while making some marginally worse. We assume relatively stable
topology, and for that case at least, stickiness does not seem worth it.
(For the record, in internal discussions, I was originally 'for'
stickiness but got convinced otherwise.)
Cheers,
-Markus
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
