Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

[maximilien mouton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

Le 13/09/2011 15:01, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:40 AM, maximilien mouton wrote: In this case
> an Information-Request when client's lifetime expires (or is close
> to) is sufficient especially if lifetime's upper limit is higher.
>
> One thing to be crystal clear about is that even if an option is
> added that contains a lifetime, it would be a major extension of the
>  DHCP protocol to propose that the client include that lifetime in
> its calculations for when to renew.

Even if I grant It would imply big changes in DHCP, I think it would be
interesting for DHCP to imitate ND dynamic behavior because in this
draft we are trying to challenge ND by allowing DHCP to provide an
entire IP/Internet configuration by its own.

Best regards,

Maximilien

> Adding an option is a minor extension.   I would oppose a major
> extension for this purpose; I don't know how the working group as a
> whole would feel about it, but I suspect there would be a great deal
> of skepticism.
>
> The way lifetimes of configuration information are handled is either
>  with the IRT, in the case of stateless DHCPv6, or with the lease
> renewal timer, in the case of stateful.   So if you put a lifetime in
> a route option, I don't see what good it would do.
>
>