RE: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 draft 22 to supp ort DSTM envir onments
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 09:07 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 EAA15726 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:07:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA26999 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 04:07:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA26476; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:59:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA26452 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:59:45 -0500 (EST)
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 DAA15561 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:59:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA04214; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:59:24 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 03:59:24 -0500
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: '???' <hclee@i2soft.net>, ngtans???? <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, DHCP???? <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 draft 22 to supp ort DSTM envir onments
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CD79@EAMBUNT705>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020115035846.16623B-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
OK. thats correct. I was presenting the logic model for DSTM processing. thx /jim /jim On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote: > Jim: > > The client would send a DSTM option with the IA option encapsulated inside the DSTM option. The client need not send the IA Addr option if there are no addresses associated with the IA. > > The -22 draft has the DSTM option encapsulating the IA option - the DSTM option is the outermost option. > > - Bernie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Bound [mailto:seamus@bit-net.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:27 AM > To: Bernie Volz (EUD) > Cc: '???'; ngtans????; DHCP???? > Subject: Re: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 draft 22 to > support DSTM envir onments > > > Bernie, > > So the client could send in a request > > IA > DSTM Option > IA Address Option (empty) > > To the server that sent the Reconfigure. > As one way to implement the behavior. > > The IA is still valid. > > regards, > > > /jim > > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Jim Bound wrote: > > > Hi Bernie, > > > > Our readings are not similar. The server does not have to send addresses > > back with an advertise but just ack the IA. > > > > In 17.2.2 it says: > > > > The server MUST include IA options in the Advertise message > > containing any addresses that would be assigned to IAs contained in > > the Solicit message from the client. The server MAY include some or > > all of the IA options from the client in the Advertise message. > > > > If the server will not assign any addresses to IAs in a subsequent > > Request from the client, the server SHOULD either send an Advertise > > message to the client that includes only a status code option with > > the status code set to AddrUnavail and a status message for the user > > or not respond to the Solicit message. > > > > In the first paragraph the IA refers to the Identity Association Option. > > Not the IA Address Option. The wording is correct in the spec. IA by > > itself is a reference to the IA option as defined in 22.3. If you then > > look at 22.4 it references the IA address option specifically. So IA is > > the association (e.g. IAID, T1 and T2, etc.) To reference the addresses > > for an IA we say specifically IA Address Option as in 22.4. > > > > Hence the server MUST return the IAs but may not return addresses and it > > can too. The spirit of this was to provide in dhcpv6 the optimization the > > working group requested so the client could get addresses after solicit > > from the server. But the server policy can be that the client must do a > > request to get addresses unless it states specifically ADDRUNAVAIL for a > > specific IA (association again). > > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote: > > > > > Hum, my understanding of -22 is that a client MUST go (back) to the Solicit state to "request" new IAs. Request, Renew, Rebind can only be used on IAs that have been used in a Solicit (or better yet, returned by a server in an Advertise response to a Solicit): > > > > > > 18.1.1. Creation and transmission of Request messages > > > > > > The client uses a Request message to populate IAs with addresses > > > and obtain other configuration information. The client includes > > > one or more IA options in the Request message, with addresses and > > > information about the IAs that were obtained from the server in a > > > previous Advertise message. The server then returns addresses and > > > other information about the IAs to the client in IA options in a > > > Reply message. > > > > So 18.1.1 is correct that the client can later poplulate IAs with > > addresses by sending IA Address Options with an IA with Request. > > > > > > > > I'm not necessarily completely happy with this (as I suspect you aren't), > > >but I think it has some benefits - since it is also possible that if > > >there are multiple servers, some may be configured to provide DSTM > > >addresses and others not? > > > > > > > We are fine with the current text completely. I believe you may be > > confusing IAs with IA Address Options. > > > > In the case of DSTM the server that tells the client they need a DSTM > > address in early deployment of IPv6 will also have the DSTM addresses and > > possibly nothing else for clients. Its purely a server that knows thru > > user administration that specific clients need DSTM addresses. Its an > > optimization early on designed in DSTM (go see NGTRANs DSTM discussions > > and presentations) to permit this kind of relationship via dhcpv6. > > > > But as you suggest is also possible and most likely at medium and long > > term IPv6 deployment where the client is best off going to solicit to find > > the server. > > > > DHCPv6 -22 supports both mechanisms and our IA and IA Address Options work > > well in both cases and we have done a good job in the working group to > > support this need from NGTRANS in the community. > > > > regards, > > /jim > > > > > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 … Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 … Jim Bound
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling