Why restriction on minimum lease time in DHCP protocol removed in RFC 2131
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
While going through RFC 2131 for DHCP I came across a section which states 1.1 Changes to RFC 1541 under which it mentions that The minimum lease time restriction has been removed.
I went through RFC 1541 again to find out the previous minimum lease time and it was for an hour.
Could anyone help me with the question that why was that restriction removed?
And any possible advantage of it?
Edit: I got an explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it in the answer section. Hope this helps.
networking tcp-ip dhcp
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
While going through RFC 2131 for DHCP I came across a section which states 1.1 Changes to RFC 1541 under which it mentions that The minimum lease time restriction has been removed.
I went through RFC 1541 again to find out the previous minimum lease time and it was for an hour.
Could anyone help me with the question that why was that restriction removed?
And any possible advantage of it?
Edit: I got an explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it in the answer section. Hope this helps.
networking tcp-ip dhcp
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
@moderator I am not sure why my question is been downvoted? If there is something which someone thinks this question is inappropriate then please comment rather than downvoting. It absolutely discourages the intent of this forum.
– Jiger Jain
Nov 13 at 4:33
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
While going through RFC 2131 for DHCP I came across a section which states 1.1 Changes to RFC 1541 under which it mentions that The minimum lease time restriction has been removed.
I went through RFC 1541 again to find out the previous minimum lease time and it was for an hour.
Could anyone help me with the question that why was that restriction removed?
And any possible advantage of it?
Edit: I got an explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it in the answer section. Hope this helps.
networking tcp-ip dhcp
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
While going through RFC 2131 for DHCP I came across a section which states 1.1 Changes to RFC 1541 under which it mentions that The minimum lease time restriction has been removed.
I went through RFC 1541 again to find out the previous minimum lease time and it was for an hour.
Could anyone help me with the question that why was that restriction removed?
And any possible advantage of it?
Edit: I got an explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it in the answer section. Hope this helps.
networking tcp-ip dhcp
networking tcp-ip dhcp
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
edited Nov 18 at 19:19
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
asked Nov 13 at 1:19
Jiger Jain
25
25
@moderator I am not sure why my question is been downvoted? If there is something which someone thinks this question is inappropriate then please comment rather than downvoting. It absolutely discourages the intent of this forum.
– Jiger Jain
Nov 13 at 4:33
add a comment |
@moderator I am not sure why my question is been downvoted? If there is something which someone thinks this question is inappropriate then please comment rather than downvoting. It absolutely discourages the intent of this forum.
– Jiger Jain
Nov 13 at 4:33
@moderator I am not sure why my question is been downvoted? If there is something which someone thinks this question is inappropriate then please comment rather than downvoting. It absolutely discourages the intent of this forum.
– Jiger Jain
Nov 13 at 4:33
@moderator I am not sure why my question is been downvoted? If there is something which someone thinks this question is inappropriate then please comment rather than downvoting. It absolutely discourages the intent of this forum.
– Jiger Jain
Nov 13 at 4:33
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The minimum lease time earlier in RFC 1541 which was of an hour created a problem for users in a space where the usage of particular IP is less than an hour. Thus there was a need to change it in RFC 2131.
For e.g., In a class of students in a University conducting classes, where lease time is as per RFC 1541 then an IP is assigned for an Hour to a particular student.
However, if there are multiple batches of half an hour lectures [With limited IPs available say 100] then the subsequent batch of students [say 70] might fall in short of IPs since the IP assigned to the students in the first batch are yet to be renewed [70 and currently available IPs in pool: 100 - 70 = 30].
Thus having a minimum lease time creates a problem. Perhaps be the reason for removing that mandate in the revision RFC 2131.
I got this explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it as an answer.
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The minimum lease time earlier in RFC 1541 which was of an hour created a problem for users in a space where the usage of particular IP is less than an hour. Thus there was a need to change it in RFC 2131.
For e.g., In a class of students in a University conducting classes, where lease time is as per RFC 1541 then an IP is assigned for an Hour to a particular student.
However, if there are multiple batches of half an hour lectures [With limited IPs available say 100] then the subsequent batch of students [say 70] might fall in short of IPs since the IP assigned to the students in the first batch are yet to be renewed [70 and currently available IPs in pool: 100 - 70 = 30].
Thus having a minimum lease time creates a problem. Perhaps be the reason for removing that mandate in the revision RFC 2131.
I got this explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it as an answer.
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The minimum lease time earlier in RFC 1541 which was of an hour created a problem for users in a space where the usage of particular IP is less than an hour. Thus there was a need to change it in RFC 2131.
For e.g., In a class of students in a University conducting classes, where lease time is as per RFC 1541 then an IP is assigned for an Hour to a particular student.
However, if there are multiple batches of half an hour lectures [With limited IPs available say 100] then the subsequent batch of students [say 70] might fall in short of IPs since the IP assigned to the students in the first batch are yet to be renewed [70 and currently available IPs in pool: 100 - 70 = 30].
Thus having a minimum lease time creates a problem. Perhaps be the reason for removing that mandate in the revision RFC 2131.
I got this explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it as an answer.
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The minimum lease time earlier in RFC 1541 which was of an hour created a problem for users in a space where the usage of particular IP is less than an hour. Thus there was a need to change it in RFC 2131.
For e.g., In a class of students in a University conducting classes, where lease time is as per RFC 1541 then an IP is assigned for an Hour to a particular student.
However, if there are multiple batches of half an hour lectures [With limited IPs available say 100] then the subsequent batch of students [say 70] might fall in short of IPs since the IP assigned to the students in the first batch are yet to be renewed [70 and currently available IPs in pool: 100 - 70 = 30].
Thus having a minimum lease time creates a problem. Perhaps be the reason for removing that mandate in the revision RFC 2131.
I got this explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it as an answer.
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
The minimum lease time earlier in RFC 1541 which was of an hour created a problem for users in a space where the usage of particular IP is less than an hour. Thus there was a need to change it in RFC 2131.
For e.g., In a class of students in a University conducting classes, where lease time is as per RFC 1541 then an IP is assigned for an Hour to a particular student.
However, if there are multiple batches of half an hour lectures [With limited IPs available say 100] then the subsequent batch of students [say 70] might fall in short of IPs since the IP assigned to the students in the first batch are yet to be renewed [70 and currently available IPs in pool: 100 - 70 = 30].
Thus having a minimum lease time creates a problem. Perhaps be the reason for removing that mandate in the revision RFC 2131.
I got this explanation from one of my Professor and thus thought of mentioning it as an answer.
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
answered Nov 18 at 19:18
Jiger Jain
25
25
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53272403%2fwhy-restriction-on-minimum-lease-time-in-dhcp-protocol-removed-in-rfc-2131%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@moderator I am not sure why my question is been downvoted? If there is something which someone thinks this question is inappropriate then please comment rather than downvoting. It absolutely discourages the intent of this forum.
– Jiger Jain
Nov 13 at 4:33