RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: sending Information-request via multicast

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Thu, 09 May 2002 00:05 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26812 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 20:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA07120 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 May 2002 20:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05978; Wed, 8 May 2002 19:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05956 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 19:51:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26415 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 19:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-536.cisco.com [10.21.98.24]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA27844; Wed, 8 May 2002 19:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020508193050.030e5278@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:32:06 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: sending Information-request via multicast
Cc: rdroms@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D3C0@EAMBUNT705>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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

OK, given the lack of clarity and the reality that site-wide multicast is 
not always available, I think we should follow Bernie's suggestion (3rd 
para below).

- Ralph

At 11:19 AM 5/8/2002 -0500, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>Yes, this same issue has given us some concern in 3G standardization.
>
>Link-local multicast is always safe to use (but does require a Relay). The 
>general multicast issue for non-link local still haven't been fully 
>resolved (at least to my understanding), so using a site scoped multicast 
>address is potentially a problem until general multicast support is 
>wide-spread.
>
>I'd recommend we require the use of the link-local multicast and remove 
>the ability to send the Information-Request to the site scoped multicast.
>
>- Bernie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Narten [<mailto:narten@us.ibm.com>mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:08 AM
>To: dhcwg@ietf.org
>Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: sending Information-request via multicast
>
> >    If the client has an IPv6 address of sufficient scope, the
> >    client MAY choose to send the Information-request message to the
> >    All_DHCP_Servers multicast address.
>
>This MAY leaves things very ambiguous. When should they do this? When
>not?  It would be much better to have a clear algorithm the client
>always follows. Otherwise, you'll get different implementations doing
>different things, which is probably not good for interoperability.
>
>Thomas
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg 
>


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg