Re: [dhcwg] Implementation problem

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Sat, 22 September 2001 03:56 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 XAA12944; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:56:45 -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 XAA03023; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:55:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02992 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12939 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA18874; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:55:09 -0400
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: "Guja, ArturX" <ArturX.Guja@intel.com>
Cc: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Implementation problem
In-Reply-To: <413FBB0BA5AED1119122000083234B1A0247B431@alpha.igk.intel.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010921235344.16329D-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

We have gone back and forth on this.  I am assuming we are now at the
state where you use it as-is?  I believe that was consensus of last round?
If we don't do this it gets too complicated to finish this spec for last
call.  In the future we can extend address types and scenarios.  


/jim


On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Guja, ArturX wrote:

> Can a client get ANY address from the available pools, 
> or does it only get a prefix to be filled with its interface identifier?
> 
> Or, is it the server's duty to make sure, that the addresses passed
> to the client are of the form:
> prefix + interface ID
> If so, the server could take the interface ID of the client from the
> client's
> link local address (if it still gets it, I'm not sure after all the changes
> here).
> 
> Does the client check the addresses' structure, or does it assign those
> addresses to its interfaces on an "AS IS" principle?
> 
> Artur G.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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