Subject: RE: DHCPv6 address model proposal...

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:47:13 -0400

A new client or an existing client can always lose all of its addresses. If
the client DOESN'T know its addresses, it can't supply them. However, if a
client does have a record of addresses, it should supply them as a "hint" to
the server.

I believe that it is generally useful and should be required of the client
if it has any addresses for which the lifetimes have not "expired".

- Bernie Volz

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 3:24 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 address model proposal...

> I explained the need for this a few days ago ... you were the one that
> suggested it! It has to do with the renewal time discussion - see the
emails
> below.

No, I said that it might be *useful* on some occasions for the client
to send the address in as a hint to the server.  I do not believe that
it is *generally* useful.   I certainly don't think the protocol
should be based on the client always doing this.

I also brought up the problem that a client might lose all its
addresses because it connected with a different server on the same
wire.   Having the client say what addresses it has doesn't solve this
problem, though.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:28:42 -0700

> if it has any addresses for which the lifetimes have not "expired".

Right, but why do you believe this?   We're talking about a lot of
bytes, and a lot of extra processing on the server, so I'd like to see
some justification for why this is useful.   Can you give me an
example where the server's behaviour would change based on this
information?

			       _MelloN_