-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Vijayabhaskar A K
Cc: 'Ralph Droms'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
Ofcourse, the requesting router can generate these values itself.
With DHCPv6 server sending T1 and T2 values, the requesting
router dont need to recalculate the values again and again..
Trust the DHCPv6 server, the values provided by it
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:19 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-02
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
The spec allows for flexibility in deployment scenarios by
allowing the ISP (through the delegating router) to control
the behavior of the requesting router, or by leaving the
behavior under the control of the requesting router
by
on
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-02.txt
Some comments inline.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
1) I fail to see why to add T1 and T2 in IA_PD. They seem to be
mostly redundant -- the requesting router should just
take the minimum
of lifetimes
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
That is, the requesting router is in charge of all the prefixes until
they expire. The robust requesting router implementation will perform
some sane refreshing of these bindings way before they expire, even
periodically.
Thus, I fail to
Similar discussion has already been had, so I'll try to keep it at the
minimum.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
At 10:57 PM 2/22/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-02.txt describes new DHCPv6
options
Pekka
See my reply inline.
~Vijay
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 2:27 AM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc
Some comments inline.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
1) I fail to see why to add T1 and T2 in IA_PD. They seem to be
mostly redundant -- the requesting router should just take the minimum
of lifetimes of the prefixes, calculate it in the same fashion, that's
it. Of course,
