>> I might experiment with working around some of these issues by using RFC >> 3203 and RFC 6704 (forcerenew with nonce authentication, which is >> reportedly implemented by dhcpcd). If you have experience with this >> subprotocol, please drop me a note.
> The problem is we can't rely on it since it is not widely supported by > clients. Chicken and egg. If you put it in hnetd, the clients will come. >> 4. Section 7.3 says "DHCPv4 lease times SHOULD be short (i.e., not longer >> than 5 minutes) in order to provide reasonable response times to >> changes." I'm not sure that's necessary -- wouldn't a longer lease >> time but with a low rebind timer (T2 in RFC 2131) be more robust? > That was the intended meaning, it has been a while since I dealt with DHCPv4, > but IIRC there is no lease time besides T1 and T2, anyway clarified. Yes there is, option 51; it's the time at which you unconditionally discard a lease even if you didn't manage to rebind it. I think there are some tradeoffs between decreasing T2 and decreasing the lease time, and I'm not sure I fully understand what they are. > "The requirement L-9 is modified, in that the M flag MUST be set > if and only if a router connected to the respective Common Link > is advertising a non-zero H-capability. The O flag SHOULD > always be set." If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that a Homenet router SHOULD implement stateless DHCPv6. That seems like a somewhat arbitrary requirement -- could you please explain the rationale? -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
