>> There is no state in a whiteboard that a network administrator would >> be involved with. It is unlike DHCP, but more like a MIPv6 binding. >> There are no addresses being doled out. Nodes register a binding >> with the ER. The address generation function is stateless - >> requiring no administration. A node could (and may very well) >> generate its own address and register it with the same result >> (possibly needing more NR/NC exchanges). > >I guess we have different view points on this. In my mind, the >whiteboard is very similar to DHCP. The whiteboard is telling a node >whether or not it is OK to use an address, that is logically the same >as assigning the node that address. The whiteboard may assign a 16-bit >short address, for use with an IP address - that is exactly the same >as assigning the node that address. >
Hi Jonathan: Looks so alike and still is so fundamentally different. Ralph explained that in SFO a lot better than I can ever do but that has to do with the model below. In DHCP, the server owns the address and lends it away. You have to get back to that server to renew the binding. In whiteboard, the nodes owns the address and registers it where it wants, or anywhere (anycast). When we do SeND, that distinction might blur quite a bit but still, the white board acts on behalf of the node so it does not hold any master state (like a pool with LRI etc...) after the node is gone. Pascal _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
