[dhcwg] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-23.txt and authors' respons e
Tony Lindström (ERA) <tony.lindstrom@era.ericsson.se> Fri, 19 April 2002 11:31 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 HAA16337 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA03334 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:31:37 -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 HAA02473; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA02456 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:22:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15833 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from esealnt461 (esealnt461.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.61]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.12.1/8.12.1/WIREfire-1.4) with SMTP id g3JBLqs7028156 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:21:52 +0200 (MEST)
Received: FROM esealnt135.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt461 ; Fri Apr 19 13:19:32 2002 +0200
Received: by esealnt135.al.sw.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2298H7W9>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:06:33 +0200
Message-ID: <1254192C94D3D411B8060008C7E6AEEBF9DD5C@esealnt408>
From: "Tony Lindström (ERA)" <tony.lindstrom@era.ericsson.se>
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:20:58 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [dhcwg] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-23.txt and authors' respons e
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
I disagree to drop the second paragraph in the handling of the Rebind message. > > > If the server finds that the addresses in the IA for the client > > > do not match the client binding the server should return an IA > > > containing no addresses with status set to RebdNoMatch. > > > > > > If the server cannot Rebind addresses for the client it SHOULD send > > > back an IA containing no addresses to the client with the status > > > field set to AddrUnavail. > > > >What is the difference between the two paragraphs above? Seems like > >either would apply to the case where the server can't provide the > >requested addresses... >We will drop the second paragraph. I though the idea was to check a Rebind(/Renew) in three levels. 1. Check the client entry (Client_ID and IA ). If the it does not exist send NoBinding. 2. Check the client address with the stored address for the client. If it does not match send RebdNoMatch. 3. Check the client address with the configuration (if re-configuration has occurred during the time). If it does not match send AddrUnavail. (All three fault cases are only valid if ALL addresses received from the client for the IA are wrong.) If you still want to drop the paragraph, please be consistent and drop it in Renew message too. / Tony _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-23.… Tony Lindström (ERA)