Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: sending Information-request via multicast

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:19:40 -0500

Yes, this same issue has given us some concern in 3G standardization.

Link-local multicast is always safe to use (but does require a Relay). The general multicast issue for non-link local still haven't been fully resolved (at least to my understanding), so using a site scoped multicast address is potentially a problem until general multicast support is wide-spread.

I'd recommend we require the use of the link-local multicast and remove the ability to send the Information-Request to the site scoped multicast.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: sending Information-request via multicast

>    If the client has an IPv6 address of sufficient scope, the
>    client MAY choose to send the Information-request message to the
>    All_DHCP_Servers multicast address.

This MAY leaves things very ambiguous. When should they do this? When
not?  It would be much better to have a clear algorithm the client
always follows. Otherwise, you'll get different implementations doing
different things, which is probably not good for interoperability.

Thomas

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

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:32:06 -0400

OK, given the lack of clarity and the reality that site-wide multicast is 
not always available, I think we should follow Bernie's suggestion (3rd 
para below).

- Ralph

At 11:19 AM 5/8/2002 -0500, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>Link-local multicast is always safe to use (but does require a Relay). The 
>general multicast issue for non-link local still haven't been fully 
>resolved (at least to my understanding), so using a site scoped multicast 
>address is potentially a problem until general multicast support is 
>wide-spread.
>
>I'd recommend we require the use of the link-local multicast and remove 
>the ability to send the Information-Request to the site scoped multicast.
>
>- Bernie
>
>From: Thomas Narten [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg 
>