failover batched dhcpbndupd

Ted Lemon Ted.Lemon at
Fri Aug 11 16:47:11 UTC 2006

On Aug 11, 2006, at 9:37 AM, David W. Hankins wrote:
> So I would basically count on ISC DHCP never implementing
> this.
> Really I think this is a fairly silly thing to put into the
> protocol, and is needlessly complicated.  This kind of
> behaviour doesn't save you fsync()s, you can just as easily
> delay fsync() until read() runs dry.  All it saves is a
> tiny number of bytes per binding update (the common/global
> options).
> And failover isn't bandwidth starved.

It does save some bytes, but yeah, I didn't think it was that  
useful.   But actually implementing the ability to receive batched  
updates wasn't that hard, and it needs to be in there for  
interoperability.   Nominum's DCS server does it, for example, so in  
order for Nominum and ISC to interoperate I had to hack batched  
updates into the ISC server.   The diffs for this were a bit to big  
of a pill to swallow, though - I couldn't think of a way to package  
them so that it would be easy for you to vet them.   :'(

More information about the dhcp-users mailing list