[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [DNA] how much effort to deal with "unplanned renumbering"

To: narten@us.ibm.com, jinchoe@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [DNA] how much effort to deal with "unplanned renumbering"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:22:27 -0800
Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au
In-reply-to: <200602131516.k1DFGKK9006254@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au

>I think we need to think hard about how much we are going to
>complicate DNA to deal with "broken renumbering attempts", which are
>not supposed to happen in the first place. The IPv6 protocols do not
>really support taking away a prefix prematurely, and when this
>happens, things aren't guarnteed to work. Thus, this is not advisable
>in general.

Right.  DNAv4 assumes that a DHCP lease, once given out, is valid until it 
expires.  I agree that trying to take this into account adds needless 
complexity to DNAv6.

References:
- [DNA] how much effort to deal with "unplanned renumbering"
  - From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [DNA] when to rerun DAD
Next by Date: RE: [DNA] Alternatives to "just send RS" when DNA starts
Prev by thread: Re: [DNA] how much effort to deal with "unplanned renumbering"
Next by thread: Re: [DNA] how much effort to deal with "unplanned renumbering"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread