Subject: [dhcwg] DHC WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01.txt

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:27:05 +0000

We agreed in the meeting in Quebec that this document was ready for WGLC, so here's the WGLC.

Please review the document one last time and indicate whether you support it, or if you think it's a bad idea.   We will do a consensus call on October 7, 2011.

---

From: Chuck Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:44:44 -0400

I generally support this document.

I believe there should be some discussion about what happens in the
Identical Prefixes scenario.  What prevents the two uncoordinated
DHCPv6 servers from handing out the same IPv6 address to different
clients?

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:41:41 +0000

This is one of the drawbacks to this approach.  However, there are
configurations that can be used to minimize the occurrence of such events.
 DAD + DHCPv6 DECLINE should help plus a non-serial address allocation
algorithm could also reduce the probability.

John

On 9/23/11 10:44 AM, "Chuck Anderson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Please review the document one last time and indicate whether you
>>support it, or if you think it's a bad idea.   We will do a consensus
>>call on October 7, 2011.
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg