<p dir="ltr">Dropped the list from cc:</p>
<p dir="ltr">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Terry Burton" <<a href="mailto:tez@terryburton.co.uk">tez@terryburton.co.uk</a>><br>
Date: 13 May 2016 21:35<br>
Subject: Re: Restarting DHCP safely whilst avoiding partner-down state<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:sthaug@nethelp.no">sthaug@nethelp.no</a>><br>
Cc: "Shawn Routhier" <<a href="mailto:sar@isc.org">sar@isc.org</a>></p>
<blockquote><p dir="ltr">> On 13 May 2016 at 21:23, <<a href="mailto:sthaug@nethelp.no">sthaug@nethelp.no</a>> wrote:<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="ltr">> >> The release notes indicate that a "gentle shutdown" feature was added<br>
> >> in the past and then subsequently removed because the semantics chosen<br>
> >> caused operational issues - but what these were isn't known because<br>
> >> the associated bug report isn't publicly available.<br>
> ><br>
> > See the discussion thread at<br>
> ><br>
> ><a href="https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2014-June/017958.html"> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2014-June/017958.html</a><br>
> ><a href="https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2014-July/017970.html"> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2014-July/017970.html</a><br>
><br>
> Very useful, thanks.<br>
><br>
> Shawn: Are you (or someone else) still working on this? If not, I'm<br>
> happy to run with it if we can agree upon a design.<br>
><br>
> Given the options given in [1] I think I prefer the different signals<br>
> for different uses approach. I would also suggest extending the OMAPI<br>
> interface to provide quick & safe shutdown.<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1]<a href="https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2014-July/017974.html"> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2014-July/017974.html</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> All the best,<br>
><br>
> Terry<br>
</p>