Re: [dhcwg] Next step(s) for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses -> abandon work? / IA_NA applicability

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 04/08/2015 09:18 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>     For the time being, I think we should not consider the 100% stateless
>     version of this. After all, the man goal of this document is an address
>     selection scheme for DHCPv6, rather than an improvement in terms of "now
>     DHCPv6 can be fully stateless".
> 
> If this algorithm does not allow stateless operation, and still requires
> keeping (and synchronizing) a lease database, then I really don't see
> the point of specifying this algorithm at all, as it provides no
> advantages over stateful random assignment.

This algorithm doesn't require keeping a lease database. DHCPv6 does.

And no, as noted in my other email, it does not require synchronization
of the lease database. IN the case of failover, rather than "renewing"
or "rebinding" the same address, the node will be leased the same
address as if it was a brandnew address -- same end result.

So the clear benefit is that you can have multiple DHCPv6 servers
operating on the same network, and you get address stabiity without an
additional protocol.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492