Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-vijay-dhc-dhcpv6-mcast-reconf-01.txt

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:57:53 +0900

(Catching up an old message...sorry for the delay)

>>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:41:54 +0100, 
>>>>> Stig Venaas <[email-masked]> said:

>> Perhaps this is not directly related to this document, but I'd like to
>> note that toggling the M/O flags may not help here.  In particular,
>> our current interpretation (as per RFC2462 and now
>> draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags) is that the change from ON to OFF doesn't
>> have any effects on a running DHCPv6 process.  So, for example, we
>> cannot expect re-invocation of the process by changing the flag from
>> ON-to-OFF-to-ON when some network configuration changes.

> I feel a bit uneasy about this toggling. I'm not sure how well it will
> work in practice. Let's say you're changing a flag from ON to OFF and
> back again. How long do you need it to be OFF for all clients to have
> seen it? Can it be that some RAs are lost? If you need to leave it OFF
> for a while, is it a problem if new clients on the link initially see
> the flag being OFF? It might also be an issue with clients not
> receiving RAs due to temporary link disconnection, say a wireless
> client temporarily out of reach, or maybe a laptop being suspended for
> a short while.

I'm afraid you're missing my point (or perhaps the above comment of
yours was a response to Ralph's message, not to mine).  To make it
clear, I'd repeat that "the change from ON to OFF doesn't have any
effects on a running DHCPv6 process" in our current interpretation (or
I'd even say in our current definition).

So, for example,

> Let's say you're changing a flag from ON to OFF and
> back again.

then, if a host started a DHCPv6 process before the change from ON to
OFF, it will simply keep the process running, regardless of the period
when the flag remains OFF or whether the intermediate RAs (with the
M/O flags OFF) are lost or not.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:27:47 +0100

> yours was a response to Ralph's message, not to mine).  To make it

Yes, so this is in addition to your point,

> I'd even say in our current definition).
[...]

So I understand this part,

Stig