Re: [dhcwg] unresolved comments in dhcpv6-25

>>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:38:50 +0800, 
>>>>> "Raymond Jayaraj" <jraymond@cwc.nus.edu.sg> said:

>> Changed definition of binding to:
>> 
>> binding   A binding (or, client binding) is a group of server data
>> records containing the information the server has about
>> the addresses in an IA or configuration information
>> assigned to the client.  A binding containing
>> information about an IA is indexed by the tuple <DUID,
>> IA-type, IAID> (where IA-type is the type of address in
>> the IA; for example, temporary).  A binding containing
>> configuration information for a client is indexed by
>> <DUID>.

> Sorry to barge in like this; but we're also hot on the heels of
> implementing (and verifying) DHC6, and would like to confirm if:

> By the change in the definition as above, a node can use stateless
> (RA) address(es) yet maintain (RENEW/REBIND applies) stateful,
> address-unrelated, context/configuration (e.g. roaming, security,
> qos, billing, mobility etc.) information with the network via DHC6?

In my understanding, yes, but the specification of dhcpv6 originally
intended to allow such coexistence.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

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