Re: [DNA] Interactions with DHCPv6

[James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Hi Brett,

I can't think of any case where CONFIRM would come up with a diffferent
answer from DNA.

I think the DNA spec ought to say that DHCP CONFIRM isn't necessary if DNA
confirms that the host is still on-link. Unfortunately, RFC 3315 says MUST,
so the statement will probably have to be phrased as SHOULD or MAY until the
DHCP spec changed is changed.


            jak


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brett Pentland" <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>
To: <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:20 PM
Subject: [DNA] Interactions with DHCPv6


> Hi folks,
>
> Section 18.1.2 of RFC 3315 (DHCPv6) contains a DNA procedure.
> How this interacts with any proposed solution for DNA
> (including the BCP documents) needs to be considered.
>
> The DT has started discussing this over the last day or so
> and I have pasted that thread into an issue with the
> proposal we submitted a few weeks ago.  This can be found at:
>
> http://ctieware.eng.monash.edu.au/twiki/bin/view/DNA/DNASoln1Issue017
>
> All comment appreciated.
> Cheers,
> Brett.
>