On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote: > > That is, the requesting router is in charge of all the prefixes until > > they expire. The robust requesting router implementation will perform > > some sane refreshing of these bindings way before they expire, even > > periodically. > > > > Thus, I fail to see any reason why these values would have to be > > communicated from the delegator. > > Yes, I agree that the it can refresh the bindings at any periodic > intervals it want. But, what if the delegating router is dead > and not responding at all?
Then it will try again a bit later and succeed. > Hence, dhcpv6 provides you with > two values: > T1 -> This is the time at which the requesting router starts > contacting the delegating router for the renewal of the lease... > T2 -> If till the expiration of T2 it didn't get the response > from the delegating router, it can contact any available > dhcpv6 server to refresh its bindings. Do you mean that similar T1 & T2 values are being used by DHCP base spec? In that case I guess it's ok, but otherwise, I still fail to see the usability. > Ofcourse, the requesting router can generate these values itself. > With DHCPv6 server sending T1 and T2 values, the requesting > router dont need to recalculate the values again and again.. > Trust the DHCPv6 server, the values provided by it makes the > requesting router to refresh its bindings well before the expiry.. Well, typically the conventional wisdom is *not* to trust any external parties to any extent greater than necessary :-) > > Prefix delegation by DHCP is not meant to be > > all-purpose-zero-configuration tool for routers, I think. > > > > This seems conflicting -- a fringe case which should not came up. > > > > Better would be just require that the requesting router will get a > > delegation from all the ISP's for itself, and subnet accordingly. > > > > If the following does not apply, it seems to me that there > > must be routers > > connected to the downstreaming interfaces -- which in turn > > could perform > > prefix delegation directly from the ISP, the first router acting as a > > relay. > > > > Doesn't seem to be need for this.. > > Need not be. Simple case is Home networks, they dont afford to have > individual routers for every ISPs. They may need multiple ISPs > for high availablity or some other reason. In this case, there will > be only one border router with mutiple appliances/nodes in the > downstreaming interfaces, which may span in one or more links. > In this case, it needs to unique IA_PD for every ISP. Seems a bit far-fetched, IMO, but ok.. > > Regardless of that, I'm not sure how the requesting router would > > discover more of these delegating routers -- how would they be > > connected? Which kind of infrastructure would typically be between > > requesting router and multiple delegating routers? > > I beleive there will be unique dialup connection with each ISPs. .. as above, I've yet to see dial-up routers deployed which would have two dial-out adapters and phone jacks, but ok.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
