The question that started all this was whether a REBIND can ever be used
by a server to extend the lease on an address it didn't allocate. Short
answer is "no". The longer answer is "no, unless there is some kind of
sharing of IAs happening, which is not specified in RFC3315".
The sharing part was out of scope for 3315. Failover might be one such
mechanism (which is being worked on in the DHC wg). There are others such as a
shared database.
And there is also the ability to trust clients as long as there is no conflict
(known by the server). So while perhaps not directly spelled out in 3315, a
server could use the client supplied information to generate the bindings and
leases. With failover, there are reasons why doing this might be appropriate --
the lazy update might not have been sent before the partner that gave out the
lease went down. This is done in v4 failover.
I'm not surr why this isn't on the dhc wg mailing list?
- Bernie (from iPad)
On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:56 AM, "Karl Auer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The question that started all this was whether a REBIND can ever be used
> by a server to extend the lease on an address it didn't allocate. Short
> answer is "no". The longer answer is "no, unless there is some kind of
> sharing of IAs happening, which is not specified in RFC3315".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
