Subject: RE: DHCPNAK for DHCPv6?

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:39:02 -0500

Ted:

I think we should state that *ONLY* IAs for that interface are ever included. I kind of assumed there was one "DHCP Client" process per interface and that each interface behaves independently.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:58 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: DHCPNAK for DHCPv6? 

> Note that the above two status codes say nothing about the binding
> because the server can't - it has no information on the bindings
> (perhaps the Prefixes are not correct is not needed since an
> existing error covers it).

What you described seems like it would work, with one caveat.  We need
to explicitly say that in DHCP Solicit, Request and Confirm message,
only IAs for the interface on which the packet is transmitted may be
included.  Otherwise, the server isn't in a position to make address
allocation decisions based on network topology information.  It might
also be necessary to place this restriction on the DHCP Rebind message
- I'm not sure.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:10:38 -0400 (EDT)

IAs are tied to Interfaces.  This has been our assumption.

/jim

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:07:57 -0700

> IAs are tied to Interfaces.  This has been our assumption.

So is it okay to update the spec to say so explicitly?

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:10:21 -0400 (EDT)

i think we should yes.....as my input..

/jim