On 31/07/2012 19:23, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <Brian> writes: > Brian> But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the > antiquated > Brian> v4-only PCs behind it, the PCs all get new IP addresses, which may > or > Brian> may not be the same as the previous time. There's nothing new in > flash > Brian> renumbering for homenets. Not handling this would be a step > Brian> backwards. > > >> Well... > >> > >> 1) sure, but the *customer* does this, not the ISP. > >> 2) the clients do have DHCP leases, and if they ask to renew their > >> previous IP, it usually gets honored. > > Brian> It doesn't matter whether it's the user or the ISP that triggers > Brian> a change, does it? > > It does. > When the customer power cycles their device, everything starts again. > They know they did this. > > If the ISP renegs on the lifetimes of the leases, and wants to flash > renumber the customer, either: > a) there is protocol for forcing the renumbering (does 6renum provide > this?)
I already mentioned RECONFIGURE (DHCPv6) and FORCERENEW (DHCP). Whatever we adopt for prefix delegation needs the equivalent. > b) the customer is offline until *they* reboot their device. > > Brian> The point is, users don't care about this, except if they reach > their > Brian> shiny new wireless printer via its IP static address. There are > definitely > Brian> parts of draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem that apply here. > > okay, I'll read it. > But, the printer is addressed as "printer.local", and is reached with > the ULA, and we agreed that having this work regardless of whether or > not the ISP was alive was in-scope. Sure, except IMHO the printer should have an unambiguous FQDN and we need dynamic DNS updates, just in case. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
