Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 20:42 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 PAA24683 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:42:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA16804 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:42:14 -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 PAA15482; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:19:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA15457 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:18:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23637 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:18:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dhcp45.summer.secret-wg.org [193.0.5.45]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NKEoa24962; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NKHq001858; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:17:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:17:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200201231840.AAA04214@dce.india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <47103B09-103E-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Router is advertising  3ffe::/64
> prefix and a host has generated an address of prefix  3ffe::/64  using
> router  advertisements.  Now, the host  needs  some  more  addresses  of
> prefix  3ffe::/64.

Why would the client want to do this?   What mechanism would cause the 
client to do this?

> It chooses to use stateful  autoconf  (dhcpv6).  The
> server  sends  advertise  saying  that,  it can  allocate  addresses  in
> 3ffe::/64  and  5ffe::/64.

Unless I misunderstand the DHCPv6 draft, this is _not_ how it works.   The 
server allocates addresses for the client.   The client can ask for 
temporary addresses, but otherwise it simply takes what the server offers.
    There's no either-or proposition here - the server offers what it offers,
  and the client takes all of it.   There is no reason why the client should 
need to pick and choose - if the server says it will give the client 
addresses on both these networks in the DHCP Advertise message, then when 
the client sends a DHCP Request message, the DHCP server will in fact give 
the client addresses on both these networks.   AFAIK it is not intended in 
the draft that the client either need to nor be able to pick and choose 
among addresses within an IA.

> Obviosuly, the client using the stateless  autoconf,  knows the prefixes
> in the link, (by router advertisements).  From the Advertise messages of
> the various servers, it knows about the prefixes in the link.

This is not only not true, but it doesn't answer the question I asked.   
Unless I am dreadfully mistaken, there is no requirement that there be a 
router on a link in order for IPv6 networking to function.   And the 
question was not "how does the client know what prefixes are available on 
the link," but rather, "on what basis would the client want to choose 
between such prefixes?"


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg