[dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 08 May 2002 15:14 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 LAA11876 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:14:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA05309 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:14:42 -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 LAA04679; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:11:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04651 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com (e21.nc.us.ibm.com [32.97.136.227]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11465 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.us.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by e21.nc.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g48FBJ64047484 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:11:20 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (rotala.raleigh.ibm.com [9.27.9.21]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.11.1m3/NCO/VER6.1) with ESMTP id g48FBJQ208322 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:11:19 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g48FBh119311 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:11:43 -0400
Message-Id: <200205081511.g48FBh119311@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:11:43 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses
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
> A server MUST return the same set of temporary address for the same > IA_TA (as identified by the IAID) as long as those addresses are > still valid. After the lifetimes of the addresses in an IA_TA have > expired, the IAID may be reused to identify a new IA_TA with new > temporary addresses. I don't think the above is what we want. A Client should be able to renew/extend lifetimes for temp addresses *if* they want. But in general, they won't. (Note this is also allowed in 3041 in the sense that this is left open as a possibility -- I don't see a need for DHC to preclude this from being done) Ralph asked: > The basic question is "can a client ask and a server agree to extend > the lifetimes on temp addresses". If lifetimes on temp addresses can > be extended, how are they different from non-temp addresses? Good > question to discuss in WG. They are different in that applications can specifically request that temp addresses be used for communication, *or* that temp addresses NOT be used. Thus, there has to be a way to distinguish between temp and non-temp addresses. Also, I believe that a node might be using several sets of temp addresses simultaneously. Normally, that would mean one set that is "preferred", but there could be a number of others that are "deprecated", meaning not to be used for new communication, but still available to the applications that are already using them. If an application is still using a temp address, it may need to extend the valid Lifetime to prevent the address from going away. This also raises a different point. There should be more text about when to get a new set of temp addresses. I.e., one could point to 3041 for guidance on when to get a new one and use similar rules. I.e., unlike permanent addresses, the normal action when a temporary address becomes deprecated is to request a new (i.e., different) one. The old one still remains for a while, but is being phased out. In contrast, for public/global addresses, the normal action is to renew the *same* address and extend its preferred lifetime. > An identity association for temporary addresses option MUST NOT > appear in a Renew or Rebind message. This option MAY appear in a > Confirm message if the lifetimes on the temporary addresses in the > associated IA have not expired. If the client wants to extend a binding (perhaps an application is still using that address) it should not be prohibited by the protocol from doing so. Thomas _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Thomas Narten
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Bound, Jim
- [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: Temporary addresses Ralph Droms