Subject: RE: DHCPNAK for DHCPv6?

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:22:31 -0500

I'm willing to try to turn this into language for the draft if the authors
are interested.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:15 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: DHCPNAK for DHCPv6? 

> We need to be careful about what "give up its existing IAs" means.
> 
> Consider a mobile node ... perhaps this signals to it that it must
> contact is Home Agent? In which case, it would want to keep the
> (IA) addresses but get new addresses for the local network such that
> it could (hopefully) contact the Home Agent.
> 
> Also, consider your laptop. You plug it in at the office and get some
> addresses. You later take it home. You do this 5 days a week. No reason
> your laptop could not hold onto the "old" IAs and try one set first and
> if that isn't accepted, try another. I'm not proposing that it do this
> (likely cheaper to drop old and get new ones), just that it could. A
> smarter implementation could even look at what the Router Advertisement
> contains and match up IAs that it thinks are valid based on the prefixes.
> 
> Obviously, the IA isn't valid on that link and thus MUST NOT be used on
> that link. If the client needs addresses, it should go to the Solicit
> phase.

This is precisely what I was trying to get across, but I phrased it
poorly.   Can you turn this into language that could go into the
draft?

Would the authors accept such language if it were provided?

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:46:30 -0400 (EDT)

sure...any text for a position that has consensus is always welcome. ralph
is updating all text and has final say on word smithing though.  

Do we have consensus on this?

/jim

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:13:32 -0700

> Do we have consensus on this?

I don't think we have a precise definition of 'this' yet, but we're
closing in on one, and I don't hear any dissent on the idea that we
should come up with one and include it.   :'}

			       _MelloN_