Re: purpose of m/o bit

[Ralph Droms <rdroms at cisco.com>]

Erik - the idea is to allow a client to initiate either HCB or ICB with
the same message, which turns into a 4 message exchange for HCB (2
messages w/ "rapid commit") or 2 message exchange for ICB.

- Ralph

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 10:30 -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Ralph Droms wrote:
> > Seems to me I'm hearing two requirements out of this thread:
> > 
> > 1) Ability to indicate to a host "DHCP is not available on this link",
> >    with the expectation that the host won't send any DHCP messages
> > 
> > 2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available DHCP
> >    configuration with a single DHCP message exchange
> >    - if a host wants HCB, it sends an HCB request (Solicit) and receives
> >      HCB and/or ICB replies
> >    - if a host wants ICB, it sends an ICB request (Information-request) 
> >      and receives ICB replies
> 
> I the case where the network admin wants to do stateless address 
> autoconfiguration and has DHCP available for ICB, how inefficient will 
> the above be?
> 
> Wouldn't this mean that the hosts which are implemented to handle HCB as 
> well as ICB, would always try with a Solicit i.e. they would end up 
> doing a 4 packet DHCP exchange. Had the host known that HCB was not 
> available, a 2 packet exchange would have been sufficient.
> 
> Thinking about hosts moving between different links, the difference 
> between 4 and 2 packets for DHCP ICB might matter.
> 
> Hence my question how useful it would be to have
> 3) Ability for the host to find out from the RA that it doesn't need to 
> bother with HCB since only ICB is available on the network.
> 
>     Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------