Re: [dhcwg] [Fwd: new issue: LL34 Better transition to routable from v4LL using DHCP]

[Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>]

On Thursday 11 September 2003 14:10, Erik Guttman wrote:
> This is important for the DHC WG to look at.  It is the last open
> issue up for discussion in the ZEROCONF WG.  Feedback is requested
> in the next week.  Obviously we can't make a decision about this
> without direction from the DHC WG.

So I think the right answer to this question is to simply decouple the IPv4LL 
and DHCP state machines.   As long as the IPV4ll state machine can reach out 
and touch the DHCP state machine, it's likely to do things that break the 
operation of the DHCP state machine.

So the right answer is, IMHO, that if the IPv4LL believes that it *may* be in 
a state where connectivity has been lost, it should configure itself a 
link-local address, and when it leaves that state, it should make the 
transition back to using the globally routable address exclusively.

In other words, the IPv4LL state machine should watch the DHCP state machine 
and make decisions at least in part based on what state the DHCP client is 
in, but the DHCP client should not change its behavior at all to accomodate 
this.   So if the DHCP client is in the INIT-REBOOT state and doesn't get an 
answer from the DHCP server, it should continue using its globally routable 
address.   But the IPv4LL agent should make note of this, and configure an 
IPv4LL address.

Does that make sense?   I realize that this has the downside that now the 
IPv4LL agent must be able to watch the DHCP client in order to do a good job 
of maintaining Iv4LL service, but I think this is preferable to breaking DHCP 
service.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg