On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:18:37PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote: > 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?
I thought one goal of IPv6 was that renumbering would become a simpler process than it is in IPv4. We have tools like Neighbour Discovery and Address Autoconifguration for (multi)addressed hosts, and Router Renumbering. Having to reboot to renumber is not ideal in many situations. This would apply to other DHCPv6 served addresses like NTP server. It seems like an argument for considering the multicast option for stateless DHCPv6 as suggested by Alain. Tim #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
