RE: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses

T1/T2 can simply be set to 0 or FFFFFFFF (T1/T2 are supposed to be set by the server in all cases, so using either of these values could easily mean no renewal or don't renew until 2^32-1 seconds have elapsed). No need for another option. Saving the 8 bytes for these two fields isn't worth it, IMHO. 

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijayabhaskar A K [mailto:vijayak@india.hp.com]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 9:17 AM
To: 'Bernie Volz (EUD)'; 'Thomas Narten'
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses 

This idea is ok.
But, we need two types of IA options : Renwable IA and Non-Renewable IA,
because, T1 and T2 fields doesn't make sense, if IA contain temporary 
addresses.

~vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Volz (EUD) [mailto:Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 9:06 AM
To: 'Thomas Narten'; vijayak@india.hp.com
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses 

Thomas/Vijay: 

We did discuss this for a long time in designing the current DHCPv6 draft. 

It really would have been useful if the IPv6 community has a means to classify the 'type' of an address. This would be useful for applications when they want to "find" a specific address.

Anyway, if we had such a thing, we would have revised the IA Option to carry it. 

Though I hate to do it because it reopens the discussions, if we consider anything we shouldn't add more IA types. Instead, we should redesign the IA option slightly and add a type field. The type field (8 bit?) could have the following values:

        0       -       "Normal" addresses 
        1       -       "Temporary" addresses 
        2       -       "DSTM" addresses (this replaces the DSTM option) 
        ... 

- Bernie 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Thomas Narten [ mailto:narten@us.ibm.com <mailto:narten@us.ibm.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 10:40 PM 
To: vijayak@india.hp.com 
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses 

Hi Vijay. 

I agree that you've raised a valid issue. 

> - Why can't we have separate IAs for normal and temporary addresses? 

Mixing temporary and non-temporary addresses in the same IA seems like 
it may create some problems. I suspect that NOT mixing them together 
within the same IA will simplify some things. I'll have to think a bit 
more about the rest of your proposal. 

Thomas 

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