On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Ralph Droms <rdr...@cisco.com> wrote: > My point is that "place with better information" and "best place from which > to deliver information to the host" are not necessarily (although likely to > be) the same...
agreed. though 'at my house' and 'at my office' are 2 different ends of that spectrum (I suspect). So I suspect that 'routers' will soon have 'mostly full' dhcpv6 servers in them... -Chris > On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:09 PM 11/11/09, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Ralph Droms <rdr...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> I'll agree that the information about routing changes is available in the >>> router. Whether the router has all the information needed and the >>> mechanisms to translate that routing information into policy changes for >>> the >>> hosts must also be considered. >> >> surely there will be hybrid scenarios where one side >> (router/dhcp-server) or the other have 'better' (more) information. I >> think that in the larger scheme, if you provision 'some information' >> with dhcp/dhcpv6 you will continue to do that tomorrow. >> >> If there is a network event that triggers host-routing changes you >> will have to have coordination between the host & router folks, just >> as you do today. If you can have the dhcpv6 server ping it's clients >> for an update, so much the better. (even so much better if that comes >> in some 'secure' manner!) >> >> -chris >> >> >>> On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:32 AM 11/11/09, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ralph, >>>> I was just commenting that the addressing policy changes triggered by >>>> routing changes are best initiated by the router and all the other >>>> policy >>>> changes are best initiated by the DHCP server. I was not commenting on >>>> the >>>> suitability/ease of use of the delivery mechanism(s) at all. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Suresh >>>> >>>> On 09-11-09 08:58 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In the discussion of IPv6 address selection , Dave Thaler asked me to >>>>> comment on this bullet from slide 10: >>>>> * DHCP option >>>>> - Hard to kick policy reconfigure by a server. >>>>> Not wanting to contribute to yet another iteration of the RA-vs-DHCP >>>>> debate, I'm responding through the mailing list. DHCPv6 has an >>>>> explicit >>>>> mechanism, required by RFC 3315, in which a server can asynchronously >>>>> trigger a DHCPv6 message exchange from the client. >>>>> Suresh commented that the router might be a better source of updates >>>>> in >>>>> some circumstances, when the selection policy is modified by changes >>>>> in the >>>>> routing infrastructure as propagated by routing protocols. I haven't >>>>> thought about that scenario and can't comment... >>>>> - Ralph >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
