On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If #2, then perhaps this option needs a lifetime value? Unless the plan > is that a) who/whatever solves the problem statement in RFC 4076 will solve > this too, or b) that everyone needing this option will use stateful DHCPv6. > > What about use of RFC 4242, which SHOULD be supported in IPv6 CE's, for > example (as per RFC 6204)? RFC 4242 was produced to address the problems > discussed in RFC 4076. > That seems like it would work. (Thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't seen it. It's unfortunate that the minimum is 10 minutes, but for this particular use case it doesn't matter.) Perhaps just say that clients that process this option MUST either implement OPTION_INFORMATION_REFRESH_TIME or assign it a default lifetime of a day or somesuch? Also, perhaps you might want to better specify what happens in the stateful DHCPv6 case instead of just saying "when it's stale"? For example, you could explicitly state that the lifetime of the option is the same as the lease time? Cheers, Lorenzo
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
