Hi Suresh, thanks for your reply. Continued inline...
On 18 August 2010 16:03, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com>wrote: > Hi Woj, > Thanks for your comments. > > > On 10-08-18 07:11 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a question or two to the draft authors who can hopefully clarify >> the expected context and working of this scheme, which at the moment is a >> bit unclear. >> In essence the problem this draft appears to be trying to solve is using >> RS/RA messages to induce state into intermediate or IP edge devices like >> what is done for DHCP, with the LIO being used to induce such state. All >> this is presumably meant to take place following an RS message sent by a >> client. Thus, my questions are: >> How does this solution cope in a case where the client does not send an >> RS? (or the RS sending has timed out)? >> > > The first sign of life from the client is either an RS or a DHCPv6 message. > If the network does not see either of the messages, there will be no address > allocated/prefix advertised to the client. The client will not have any > connectivity. > Hmm, but if the first sign of life is a DHCPv6 message from a client , then why would the RS LIO be needed ? Now, in the case of a non DHCPv6 client, given that such clients are do time out from sending RS messages, how does the solution cater to that? Just leaving clients with no connectivity seems like a highly undesirable proposition/outcome... -Woj. > > Thanks > Suresh > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
