RE: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-venaas-dhc-lifetime-00.txt

FYI:

RFC 3315 states in Section 15, Message Validation:

   A server MUST discard any Solicit, Confirm, Rebind or
   Information-request messages it receives with a unicast destination
   address.

So, Information-Request *MUST* be multicast. It may not be unicast. (Also,
even if this rule were relaxed, the client MUST NOT unicast unless it
receives a Server Unicast option).

I don't see a need for a preferred and valid lifetime for configuration
information. Just a lifetime is sufficient. We should NOT call this a "valid
lifetime" as that has a well understood meaning in IPv6.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Chown
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 6:50 PM
To: DHCPWG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-venaas-dhc-lifetime-00.txt

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:46:56PM +0530, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
> >
> It may choose to stop serving this link and may want trigger the client 
> to use some other dhcp server

Hmm, that's an interesting special case, where the DHCPv6 server is itself
being renumbered or changed.   Might be worth an explicit mention in the
text?

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