This is my understanding too and the way it should be implemented too. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ralph Droms > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 7:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: meta thoughts on m/o bits > > John - My understanding is that the selection of SLAAC addresses is > separate from the use of DHCP; that is, a host may be in a scenario in > which it uses both an address chosen through SLAAC and an address > assigned through a DHCP message exchange. So, the availability of a > SLAAC address should not affect the use of DHCP. > > - Ralph > > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:24 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Jari & Hesham, > > > > > >=> :) I don't want them to charge users for Ralph's > implementation :) > > > >But seriously, charging is one thing, inefficient use of > power is > > > >another serious problem which can actually reduce revenue because > > > >a device doesn't go dormant long enough and runs out of battery > > > >instead of using that battery power for what the user > actually wants > > > >to do. > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to agree with Hesham that we should attempt to design > > > our protocols so that unnecessary periodic probing over wireless > > > is minimized. One thing that should be kept in mind is that most > > > people want their devices to be always on and reachable, but yet > > > they might actually use them for something only a very small > > > fraction of the time. Even a tiny amount of traffic during the > > > inactive period may thus result in a relatively large impact > > > when you compare it to actual useful traffic. This in turn > > > translates to battery lifetimes and cost for the users. > > > > Basically, what I think we'd like is that if a device has a working > > address and is 'attached' to a network, it should probably use that > > address and only probe upon some failure event. When the device > > shows up to a new network, it can probe and if it gets a > DHCP address, > > then use it, and update the address before the lease expires. If > > the device gets a valid address via autoconfig, then it > should continue > > to use that. It doesn't make much sense that a node should > continually > > verify if it should use a DHCP address if it has an > otherwise working > > address. > > > > Note that many applications will run sometime of watchdog > or heartbeat > > to ensure that application is still alive on both ends. If > this fails, > > that might be a clue to check if the IP address is still valid. I > > agree that having probing at multiple layers is a bad design, IMO. > > > > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dhcwg mailing list > > dhcwg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
