Re: [dhcwg] unresolved comments in dhcpv6-25

Hi. Thx for the response!

----- Original Message -----
From: <JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H (B
<jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>)>
To: "Raymond Jayaraj" <jraymond@cwc.nus.edu.sg>
Cc: "Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com>; <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] unresolved comments in dhcpv6-25

> >>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:38:50 +0800,
> >>>>> "Raymond Jayaraj" <jraymond@cwc.nus.edu.sg> said:
>
> >> Changed definition of binding to:
> >>
> >> binding   A binding (or, client binding) is a group of server
data
> >> records containing the information the server has about
> >> the addresses in an IA or configuration information
> >> assigned to the client.  A binding containing
> >> information about an IA is indexed by the tuple <DUID,
> >> IA-type, IAID> (where IA-type is the type of address in
> >> the IA; for example, temporary).  A binding containing
> >> configuration information for a client is indexed by
> >> <DUID>.
>
> > Sorry to barge in like this; but we're also hot on the heels of
> > implementing (and verifying) DHC6, and would like to confirm if:
>
> > By the change in the definition as above, a node can use stateless
> > (RA) address(es) yet maintain (RENEW/REBIND applies) stateful,
> > address-unrelated, context/configuration (e.g. roaming, security,
> > qos, billing, mobility etc.) information with the network via
DHC6?
>
> In my understanding, yes, but the specification of dhcpv6 originally
> intended to allow such coexistence.
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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