Re: [dhcwg] two comments on draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

For #1 I would think sending a solicit with IA_PD is how you can find out if the server supports it.  If it does you will get a prefix returned, if not you will get a Noaddrsavail for the IA.

> On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I just read draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-00.
> 
> I am happy this draft exists and I have two comments.  One is more
> general question in this context, and the other a potential improvement,
> but not a request.
> 
> The draft assumes the Client is a Host which may request a prefix len at
> some point, and another one maybe later.  It seems the prefix is to be
> used on the interface which has issued that Solicit.  And it seems to
> face a Server sure to be willing to deliver a prefix.
> 
> 1. What is the best way to query a DHCPv6 Server to ask it whether or
> not it supports Prefix Delegation at all?
> 
> 2. when this Router changes mind and requests a different prefix, maybe
> with a different length, a specification like
> draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue could recommend to
> deprecate that prefix with specific consideration to below it, not just
> to the Server.
> 
> I mean this something like this:
> 
> Current text:
>> 1.Deprecate the old prefix right away by sending a Release message to
>> the server, and switch over to the new prefix.
> 
> New text:
>> 1.Deprecate the old prefix right away by sending a Release message to
>> the server, and switch over to the new prefix.  And by stopping
>> sending RAs on its other interfaces with the old prefix, stop
>> propagating it in the routing protocol.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg