Subject: RE: Discussion items for dhcpv6 -19 draft ...

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:58:59 -0500

OK. I'm happy if we add the IAIDs (and I'd also suggest the request type just to be safe). Then we can leave the XID as 16-bits.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 4:47 PM
To: DHCPv6 discussion list
Subject: Re: Discussion items for dhcpv6 -19 draft ... 

> Does this really break anything?   Perhaps not.   Is it proper
> behaviour?   NO.

A client with no non-volatile storage probably can't form a different
query after it crashes, so the cached response should be identical to
the previous response anyway.

The DHCP server has to check the outgoing packet to make sure it's to
the right client, based on the DUID, so I think that your proposed
solution of making it check the IAIDs as well is probably the right
one - this is a _lot_ less work than a database lookup, so it's still
a win.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:00:15 -0700

> OK. I'm happy if we add the IAIDs (and I'd also suggest the request
> type just to be safe). Then we can leave the XID as 16-bits.

Actually, I just checked, and it's already there.   The current draft
calls for entries in the cache to be indexed by {xid, binding}.
A binding includes both the IAID and the DUID.

			       _MelloN_