Correct. DHCPv6 has its own state machine, so I would say, taking into account the 2hr valid lifetime minimum, to just make sure to have a leasetime short enough to cope with these changes rather than start enforcing the glueing of RA and DHCPv6. OK, shorter lease time will introduce some more traffic, but imho, not that big overhead and only local traffic
From: homenet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti Sent: donderdag 16 oktober 2014 16:19 To: Ted Lemon Cc: [email protected]; Michael Thomas Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !? On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Um, no? Why would it? Because that's an indication that there is new information to be had. So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That seems pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP implementation works that way.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
