|
That statement was about if the client transitioned to SOLICIT
state for those bindings that returned NOBINDING status in the RENEW/REBIND.
This would then potentially result in the client selecting a DIFFERENT server
than it was using for existing bindings for which no issue existed (they
renewed). Just follow the procedures in the RFC. -
Bernie From: ravi kumar
[mailto:ravikumar.lrk at gmail.com] Can you please explain more on below statement of
yours - "It gets more complicated too if the client has
multiple bindings since it could end up communicating with multiple servers for
different bindings which is probably not as desirable." From RFC, Request message is sent only for those IA's
that contains NOBINDING status in Reply of Server. The above scenario would
occur only when NOBINDING status received as part of multiple IA's. Is
such situation possible incase of Renew-Reply ? Please clarify! <More Replies Inline> Ravi On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz at cisco.com> wrote: The reason is that the client is already
using the server and the server is up and running and a REQUEST is the only
message that can create a new binding. While the client COULD return to
SOLICIT, that requires more time and processing than sending a REQUEST does.
(It gets more complicated too if the client has multiple bindings since it
could end up communicating with multiple servers for different bindings which
is probably not as desirable.) <Ravi> In specific case
of Client message containing only one IA with a single address, Is it not
enough that Client starts with Solicit, instead o Request message ? The client is best to include the
addresses it thinks it has in the REQUEST – the server may or may not assign
them to the client (it will depend on what is in the REPLY). If the client does
not include those addresses, it would be unlikely to get them (as the server
has no record of them!) and that may cause problems because now the client may
continue to use those addresses until the valid lifetime expires but the server
has no record of those addresses being used (which means they could end up
being allocated to another client). This case is really when the server has
lost information on the bindings. - Bernie From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org]
On Behalf Of ravi kumar I
need clarification regarding section 18.1.8 of RFC- 3315 : <Copy-paste
from RFC> When
the client receives a Reply message in response to a Renew or Incase
of Client's message containing only one IA, Is it not enough that Client starts
with Solicit, instead o Request message. Because,
incase Client sends Request, then Server would either respond with a Reply
containing different Address (than requested) / ignores Client's message,
since address is not available with Server. In that case, client finally falls
back to Solicit to acquire address. Instead
if Client sends Solicit in response to Server's reply would quicken address
acquisition. Please
clarify me in this regard regards Ravi |