Christian Vogt escribió:
yes, moreover, we need to figure if it is enough with a prioritazation or we need to change the mechanisms in order to interact properly. As i stated earlier (and eric noted before me), we certainly need to update send savi to properly interact with the slaac savi (at least, haven't doen the analysis for dhcp savi yet)On Oct 28, 2009, Dong Zhang wrote:My concern is that as a vendor, it may implement the savi approaches, including fcfs approach, cps approach and SEND approach. So how to coordinate them needs to be considered. I mean all the approaches work together or choose one to work. I guess it could be the latter. If so, the condition for choosing each approach should be illustrated unambiguously.Yes, I agree.However, I assumed that there is still an exception, which means several address assignment methods exist in one case. How do the savi approaches deal with this case?For this case, we need a prioritization of which address assignment methods take precedence over which other address assignment methods. And you are right that the definition of this prioritization will require care.
Regards, marcelo
Does this make sense? Does it address your question and comment? - Christian _______________________________________________ savi mailing list savi at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.