On Jun 11, 2009, at 5:53 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
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.
Hi Pascal,
If Ralph could reiterate what he said at the WG meeting on the ML,
that would certainly help my understanding of the fundamental
difference between DHCP and whiteboard.
At least in my mental model, the whiteboard is authoritative in what
nodes can use what address. The node MUST periodically renew the
binding with the whiteboard. The node cannot use that address when the
binding expires without renewal because the whiteboard could then
allow another node to use that same address. Whether or not we view
the node as "owning" the address is a non-issue for me. Functionally,
the whiteboard is authoritative and that's not unlike DHCP.
Also, in various places in the ND draft, we say *stateless* address
autoconfiguration - when in fact this is not the case. The whiteboard
maintains necessary state for all nodes in the network no matter how
you spin it. If that state does not exist, is not maintained properly,
or cannot be reached by the client node, DAD using the whiteboard will
fail. At the very least, I think we should drop the word "stateless"
everywhere in the draft.
--
Jonathan Hui
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
