Fair enough, but asynchronous notification of configuration changes hasn't been a requirement in IPv4 (well, there is the FORCERENEW message in RFC 3203; as far as I know there are no implementations of RFC 3203). Why would it be needed for IPv6?
- Ralph
At 11:29 AM 11/7/2003 +0900, SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro wrote:
> 1. a "stateless" subset of the current DHCPv6, as specified in > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01.txt > 2. an extension to the current DHCPv6 that has the ability to > multicast the stateless information (that I guess Alain first > proposed)
> (i). In what way is DHCPv6-lite insufficient?
DHCPv6-lite has no way to inform a DNS recursing server renumbering. A DHCPv6-lite server could send Reconfigure messages for its clients, if the server hold a client list, but it's not -lite.
DHCPv6-lite with a multicast extension might help this.
-- SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro @ NTT Communications t: +81-3-6800-3262, f: +81-3-5365-2990 #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
