Subject: [dhcwg] Clarification in RFC 3633

From: "ravi kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:24:17 +0530

I would like to clarify, if the following scenario is valid, as per RFC
3633:

1) DHCP Server responds with "x" prefixes, in reponse to Client REQUEST
message.
2) The client sends RENEW message, with "x" prefixes in IAPD option.
3) Then Server responds with "y" prefixes( where "y" > "x"), in the REPLY
message.

Should client accept the REPLY message from Server, as valid REPLY message
or Not?

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

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:01:29 +0000

> Should client accept the REPLY message from Server, as valid REPLY message

yes. this is how you do renumbering.

/ot

---

From: "ravi kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:57:39 +0530

Thanks for the reply.
So in that case, The client should also accept the newly added prefixes in
RENEW message. Am I right?

regards
Ravi

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:49:16 +0000

> So in that case, The client should also accept the newly added
> prefixes in RENEW message. Am I right?

I don't understand what you mean by a client accepting prefixes in a
RENEW message.

if you mean that the client includes the new set of prefixes in a
subsequent RENEW message, then that is correct.

/ot

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:24:34 -0500

I think he was meaning that the client use the prefixes in the REPLY in
response to the RENEW.

And, yes that is what the client should do.

Basically, the client should do what is in the Reply (RFC 3315 has some
text about this for addresses, not sure if 3633 duplicated that for
prefixes). For those prefixes that are in the Reply and the client
already has information, update the prefix lifetimes [note that the NEW
lifetimes might be 0 if the server is attempting to revoke the
prefixes]. For those prefixes that are in the Reply for which the client
has no information, it should "install" them. And, those prefixes the
client already has but are NOT in the reply, it should leave them be.

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Troan (otroan) 
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 8:49 AM
To: ravi kumar
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Clarification in RFC 3633

/ot

---

From: "ravi kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:56:34 +0530

Thanks a lot for the reply.

regards
Ravi