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

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