Erik - the idea is to allow a client to initiate either HCB or ICB with the same message, which turns into a 4 message exchange for HCB (2 messages w/ "rapid commit") or 2 message exchange for ICB.
- Ralph On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 10:30 -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote: > Ralph Droms wrote: > > Seems to me I'm hearing two requirements out of this thread: > > > > 1) Ability to indicate to a host "DHCP is not available on this link", > > with the expectation that the host won't send any DHCP messages > > > > 2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available DHCP > > configuration with a single DHCP message exchange > > - if a host wants HCB, it sends an HCB request (Solicit) and receives > > HCB and/or ICB replies > > - if a host wants ICB, it sends an ICB request (Information-request) > > and receives ICB replies > > I the case where the network admin wants to do stateless address > autoconfiguration and has DHCP available for ICB, how inefficient will > the above be? > > Wouldn't this mean that the hosts which are implemented to handle HCB as > well as ICB, would always try with a Solicit i.e. they would end up > doing a 4 packet DHCP exchange. Had the host known that HCB was not > available, a 2 packet exchange would have been sufficient. > > Thinking about hosts moving between different links, the difference > between 4 and 2 packets for DHCP ICB might matter. > > Hence my question how useful it would be to have > 3) Ability for the host to find out from the RA that it doesn't need to > bother with HCB since only ICB is available on the network. > > Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
