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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:34:50 -0300,
Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> So the clear benefit is that you can have multiple DHCPv6 servers
> >> operating on the same network, and you get address stability
> >> without an additional protocol.
> >
> > This concept is flawed if the servers aren't cooperating. If there
> > are multiple servers that don't share lease data, how does server 1
> > know whether the lease was leased to another client or renewed, if
> > server 2 ends up communicating with the client?
>
> Usually, you need servers to communicate because there's no way to tell
> which address each server may have assigned to which client. But that's
> not the case with this method.

I tend to agree with Bernie here.  Those servers would most likely
have to maintain/share other kinds of states than address itself
anyway: T1/T2, address lifetimes, previously advertised FQDN, etc.
This algorithm might make address information optional from that has
to be explicitly shared, but even so it won't make the failover
implementation any simpler in practice.

As I stated in my own response to this inquiry, I see some niche
benefit in the proposed approach, so I wouldn't necessarily be opposed
to publishing it.  But, to me, the benefit seems to be quite minor.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya