Subject: RE: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:35:58 -0500

Thomas/Vijay:

We did discuss this for a long time in designing the current DHCPv6 draft.

It really would have been useful if the IPv6 community has a means to classify the 'type' of an address. This would be useful for applications when they want to "find" a specific address.

Anyway, if we had such a thing, we would have revised the IA Option to carry it.

Though I hate to do it because it reopens the discussions, if we consider anything we shouldn't add more IA types. Instead, we should redesign the IA option slightly and add a type field. The type field (8 bit?) could have the following values:
	0	-	"Normal" addresses
	1	-	"Temporary" addresses
	2	-	"DSTM" addresses (this replaces the DSTM option)
	...

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 10:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses 

Hi Vijay.

I agree that you've raised a valid issue.

> - Why can't we have separate IAs for normal and temporary addresses?

Mixing temporary and non-temporary addresses in the same IA seems like
it may create some problems. I suspect that NOT mixing them together
within the same IA will simplify some things. I'll have to think a bit
more about the rest of your proposal.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Vijayabhaskar A K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:47:07 +0530

RE: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addressesThis idea is ok.
But, we need two types of IA options : Renwable IA and Non-Renewable IA,
because, T1 and T2 fields doesn't make sense, if IA contain temporary
addresses.

~vijay
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Bernie Volz (EUD) [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 9:06 AM
  To: 'Thomas Narten'; [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses

  Thomas/Vijay:

  It really would have been useful if the IPv6 community has a means to
classify the 'type' of an address. This would be useful for applications
when they want to "find" a specific address.

  Anyway, if we had such a thing, we would have revised the IA Option to
carry it.

  Though I hate to do it because it reopens the discussions, if we consider
anything we shouldn't add more IA types. Instead, we should redesign the IA
option slightly and add a type field. The type field (8 bit?) could have the
following values:

          0       -       "Normal" addresses

  - Bernie

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 10:40 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: FW: [dhcwg] co-existence of temp and normal addresses

  Hi Vijay.

  Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:07:57 -0700

> Though I hate to do it because it reopens the discussions, if we
> consider anything we shouldn't add more IA types. Instead, we should
> redesign the IA option slightly and add a type field. The type field
> (8 bit?) could have the following values:
  
> 	1	-	"Temporary" addresses

I think these two may make sense. The reason is that temporary
addresses are different than other addresses in *how* the client uses
them. A client may want to use several at a time, or just one. It may
want to extend the lease of one particular one (if the application
continues to use it), etc.  That is, temporary addresses really do
have the potential for being used in application-specific manners. As
an example (not that I necessarily agree with it), when temporary
addresses were designed in the IPNg WG, there were some people that
thought it should be possible to have a new address created whenever a
new application started. Allowing the client to ask for "yet another
new temporary address" (as opposed to "give me the temporary addresses
I'm supposed to have")) would support this.

> 	2	-	"DSTM" addresses (this replaces the DSTM option)

I can see the benfit here. Having a type makes sense in cases where
identifying the type of address (i.e, how it will be used) is
necessary to decide how to allocate and use it.

Thomas