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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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. 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.

I agree DHCP has its separate means to deal with lifetimes.

Default route (not route in general) has a particular lifetime
characteristic when managed with ND.

It is good that lifetime of ND and of DHCP are coherent when used on
default route.

Alex

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif