Subject: RE: [dhcwg] additional questions on dhcpv6-28

From: Jun Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:54:41 -0800

At 04:25 PM 1/23/03 -0600, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:
[...]
>I definitely don't think infinite renewals times are a good idea, so I 
>would not
>recommend adding this for T1/T2.

Infinite T1/T2 may be helpful during network renembering. It tells the
client that the server is no longer willing to extend address/prefix
lifetimes and that the addresses/prefixes assigned before should
expire at a fixed future time.

-Jun

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:53:49 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:54:41 -0800, 
>>>>> Jun Xie <[email-masked]> said:

> expire at a fixed future time.

Again, I don't have a particular opinion on this, but according to the
discussion so far, some people think the notion of infinity for
lifetimes, T1 and T2 makes sense.

If we allow infinity for T1 (and T2), however, we may have to be
careful about one thing.  When both valid lifetime and T1 are
infinity, the assigned address will never be released, unless the
client allows reconfigure or the client voluntarily releases the
address.

The situation is different from stateless address autoconfiguration,
because the advertising router can always decrease the lifetime in
later advertisements.

Thus, we'll at least have to note the possibility of address
assignment that never expires.  We may also have to consider a
stronger requirement, such as:

- do not allow infinite T1 (and T2) values
- do not allow servers to specify infinite T1 (and T2) unless the
  client accepts Reconfigure

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg