[dhcwg] Implementation problem

"Guja, ArturX" <ArturX.Guja@intel.com> Fri, 21 September 2001 10:14 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18370; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:14:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA09349; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:13:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA09322 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from calliope1.fm.intel.com (fmfdns01.fm.intel.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18365 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fmsmsxvs042.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxv042-1.fm.intel.com []) by calliope1.fm.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4, v 1.42 2001/09/04 16:24:19 root Exp $) with SMTP id KAA25493 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:13:36 GMT
Received: from fmsmsx29.FM.INTEL.COM ([]) by fmsmsxvs042.fm.intel.com (NAVGW with SMTP id M2001092103124308342 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 03:12:43 -0700
Received: from alpha.igk.intel.com ([]) by fmsmsx29.FM.INTEL.COM with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id T2T6YKT5; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 03:13:17 -0700
Received: by alpha.igk.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NMB581F9>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:13:12 +0200
Message-ID: <413FBB0BA5AED1119122000083234B1A0247B431@alpha.igk.intel.com>
From: "Guja, ArturX" <ArturX.Guja@intel.com>
To: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:13:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Subject: [dhcwg] Implementation problem
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Can a client get ANY address from the available pools, 
or does it only get a prefix to be filled with its interface identifier?

Or, is it the server's duty to make sure, that the addresses passed
to the client are of the form:
prefix + interface ID
If so, the server could take the interface ID of the client from the
link local address (if it still gets it, I'm not sure after all the changes

Does the client check the addresses' structure, or does it assign those
addresses to its interfaces on an "AS IS" principle?

Artur G.

dhcwg mailing list