RE: [dhcwg] Renumbering stateless DHCPv6 as dhc WG charter item

I agree. Having the lifetime should be able to reasonably handle the
planned events.

Other client-side triggers, such as new prefixes in an RA or expired
prefixes, should
be able to handle some unplanned events.

An individual server failing and being replaced at a different address
will likely
always be a tricky situation and is best handled by using redundancy or
DNS names
(instead of addresses) whenever possible.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Tim Chown
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:41 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Renumbering stateless DHCPv6 as dhc WG charter item

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:30:00AM -0500, Bernie Volz wrote:
> Would it make sense to revise the text to also include "suggested" 
> client-detected events, such as receiving Router Advertisements with a

> new prefix, that might trigger a client generated request?
> 
> Other than that, the proposed text is fine.

I agree there are other "events" and scenarios to maybe consider,
especially from the client perspective.  I think whoever said we'll get
a better picture from the DNA WG work has a good point, so we should
track that closely.

Basically I think we should adopt the lifetime draft as a "general fit"
solution to refine (as there is currently a gap) and in parallel think
about 
other cues and scenarios that can be described in the problem statement 
draft.    There may then be a need for other work to emerge, for
specific
identified scenarios.

Getting both drafts adopted will help us focus on that task.

Tim

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

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