On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Ralph Droms <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK.
>
> I'll agree that the information about routing changes is available in the
> router.  Whether the router has all the information needed and the
> mechanisms to translate that routing information into policy changes for the
> hosts must also be considered.

surely there will be hybrid scenarios where one side
(router/dhcp-server) or the other have 'better' (more) information. I
think that in the larger scheme, if you provision 'some information'
with dhcp/dhcpv6 you will continue to do that tomorrow.

If there is a network event that triggers host-routing changes you
will have to have coordination between the host & router folks, just
as you do today. If you can have the dhcpv6 server ping it's clients
for an update, so much the better. (even so much better if that comes
in some 'secure' manner!)

-chris


> On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:32 AM 11/11/09, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>> Hi Ralph,
>>  I was just commenting that the addressing policy changes triggered by
>> routing changes are best initiated by the router and all the other policy
>> changes are best initiated by the DHCP server. I was not commenting on the
>> suitability/ease of use of the delivery mechanism(s) at all.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Suresh
>>
>> On 09-11-09 08:58 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>>
>>> In the discussion of IPv6 address selection , Dave Thaler asked me to
>>>  comment on this bullet from slide 10:
>>> * DHCP option
>>>  - Hard to kick policy reconfigure by a server.
>>> Not wanting to contribute to yet another iteration of the RA-vs-DHCP
>>>  debate, I'm responding through the mailing list.  DHCPv6 has an  explicit
>>> mechanism, required by RFC 3315, in which a server can  asynchronously
>>> trigger a DHCPv6 message exchange from the client.
>>> Suresh commented that the router might be a better source of updates  in
>>> some circumstances, when the selection policy is modified by  changes in the
>>> routing infrastructure as propagated by routing  protocols.  I haven't
>>> thought about that scenario and can't comment...
>>> - Ralph
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to