Hi Alan, that wasn't quite the question I asked. DHCPv6 has a well defined mechanism to periodically retry, while RS client sending simply timeout. This would seemingly leave such clients in the proposed scheme with no connectivity.
-Woj. On 18 August 2010 16:51, Alan Kavanagh <alan.kavan...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Woj > > Its the same issue for DHCPv6, if the client dont send a DHCP_Solicit you > dont get an address. Also, the RS similar to the DHCP_Solicit is used to > "kick_start" the IP Sub session and as you know there are lots of hosts whom > dont have a DHCPv6 client and will not have a DHCPv6 client. > > The RS LIO is used to cater for hosts who do not have a DHCPv6 Client. Also > the LIO is used to identify the subscriber line and tie rules etc to this > sub line. > > Alan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of > *Wojciech Dec > *Sent:* August-18-10 10:46 AM > *To:* Suresh Krishnan > *Cc:* Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: Consensus call on > adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
