Re: [dhcwg] Adopt draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item

[Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

On 12-04-08 23:26, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Regarding 0, no. This work would be folded into 3315bis but it should
> proceed separately. Primarily because it is needed "now" and the 3315bis
> work will probably be at a much slower pace.
> ...
> This work is really related to 6204bis and the fact that the cable
> market needs the router behavior to be clarified.
Sure. In that case pick only those of my comments that you think are
useful in 6204bis context and we can get back to the other ones later
during 3315bis work.

> back to Solicit, this allows the client the ability to RENEW the IA_PD
> and include the IA_NA to get a new address (that hopefully won't have
> the DAD or other conflict). Note that in this RENEW, the IA_NA would not
> have an IA_ADDR option (or if it does, it would be the unspecified
> address).
Ok, that is less scary than it initially looked. Nevertheless, I still
don't like it much. Using RENEW to request new addresses or prefixes is
wrong and will not work. It is true that to some extent REQUEST and
RENEW work in similar manner, but they were kept separated for a reason.
I would prefer to send a separate REQUEST for requesting new allocations.

Also, the idea to use RENEW to get new address/prefix will not work with
conformant implementations. Servers will send back IA, but with status
code set to NoBinding. Here's appropriate part of 3315, section 18.2.3:

   If the server cannot find a client entry for the IA the server
   returns the IA containing no addresses with a Status Code option set
   to NoBinding in the Reply message.

So no, don't request anything new in RENEW. That's what REQUEST is for.

Tomek