IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01

"A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79BD21F8670 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.883
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.883 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6f6QeoDHmEQ7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E384121F8661 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty7 with SMTP id y7so1222535bkt.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=8bRcatBzlczwusNqe/DVeqIqXumWWnYVWLUHQAHQxI4=; b=hQ2CM9MM4cyx51oS5Xi61kfRMsRKc34XLKjbqZgBbSBZBGM9a/yvopw6n7E1TnAW+A AeaZeI+dUj+CGC10294ukZ/9St0PnlVHjS7EIIfxrtFrQ/GU778emavO/RCMrqGq6vQ5 W7NXlqh/Tj/szQrzV/ZQWJgby7E3xF2ZA2XfFIYmxHTqc046EswjqylNf0bbe4WledQD to8tEqYG5tn5WADcyGRyEVD1vkIfjGEYObNWNzJn5LDOzvcJXODcuNNr2BgD6btopVPY ubG1+R8y4p3eWlOD4gZ0ZytsZmLMM7VacRAsfrVuN/PuB6vwY+HsqoPQ+3sDHybtT0pD wbEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.5.144 with SMTP id 16mr978184bkv.128.1345140222824; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.189.6 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120816175534.GE4612@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
References: <CAAed6vtYx4g+C1PAWBFQF1aPAx-=PCE2YREnaNDSMYcgAY69_A@mail.gmail.com> <10414435.125914.1345139460853.JavaMail.root@network1.net> <20120816175534.GE4612@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:03:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAed6vtaD7zQ4iqo5_mvVq0FaVwe1R3JnJjQ+eSFREdN0t00EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>
To: perl-list <perl-list@network1.net>, "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>, dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151758af642791f204c765ddef"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnzsWeRrBIt+YXTEvZcTsg94mcFNksWtXPhOBIICVy3Gk7o0BNGAc/qxxPZE3YgH4V4Hg6l
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:03:45 -0000

Really?

RFC 3315:

18.1.3. Creation and Transmission of Renew Messages

   To extend the valid and preferred lifetimes for the addresses
   associated with an IA, the client sends a Renew message to the server
   from which the client obtained the addresses in the IA containing an
   IA option for the IA.


Greg


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:51:00PM -0400, perl-list wrote:
>
> > Some of your other comments got me to thinking, however... On
> > DHCPv4, the client may start communicating directly with the DHCP
> > server ignoring the relay agent for renews (no idea if it is
> > supposed to do that, but some do). Is this the case in DHCPv6? Is it
> > possible for the client to ignore the relay agent and communicate
> > directly with the DHCPv6 server on rebind? If so, then this solution
> > will only sort of work...
>
> No, DHCPv6 messages are always multicast and picked up by Relays (or
> directly connected Servers).  There is no such thing as unicast Renew
> in DHCPv6.
>

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status