Subject: RE: DHCPv6 address model proposal...

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:47:43 -0400

OK (I guess I should brush up on my DHCP terminology). The only benefit from
sending the list in the RENEWING case is the case where the server has lost
stable storage. In that case, if would have NO record of the addresses and
would be forced to determine new ones. So, we can decide whether that one
case is worth it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:39 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 address model proposal...

> The REBIND case is really the only one. We have been taking about
> clients needing to "renew" the leases so isn't that a REBIND?

No.  REBIND is when the client has already tried to renew the lease by
contacting the server from which it got the lease using a unicast
message.  Time is running out, so it decides to see if it can contact
another server using multicast (broadcast in the DHCPv4 case).
REBINDING and RENEWING are two distinct states, and REBINDING is
specifically for cases where the old server can't be contacted.

I do not think it is necessary for the client to send an address list
in the RENEWING case - only in the REBINDING case.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:16:38 -0700

> The only benefit from sending the list in the RENEWING case is the
> case where the server has lost stable storage.

Realistically, I don't think this is a problem significant enough to
be worth trying to solve - this is a fairly unlikely event.  Also, if
the server loses stable storage, it would be sheer luck if any given
client were able to get back its old set of addresses before some
other client got it, even if we did insist that clients always send
back all their addresses in every renewal request.   So it's a pretty
high price to pay for a pretty low return.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:28:55 -0400

> Also, if the server loses stable storage, it would be sheer luck if
> any given client were able to get back its old set of addresses
> before some other client got it

Given the size of the v6 address space and the standard subnet size,
I'd say that the probabilities are (or could be engineered to be) on
the side of non-reuse.

				- Bill

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:31:30 -0700

> I'd say that the probabilities are (or could be engineered to be) on

Yup.   Sounds like stateless addrconf.

			       _MelloN_