draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-04.txt   draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05.txt 
DHC Working Group T. Li DHC Working Group T. Li
Internet-Draft C. Liu Internet-Draft C. Liu
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Cui Intended status: Standards Track Y. Cui
Expires: April 20, 2017 Tsinghua University Expires: July 29, 2017 Tsinghua University
October 17, 2016 January 25, 2017
DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-04 draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05
Abstract Abstract
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] allows a client to include a DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (RFC3633) allows a client to include a
prefix-length hint value in the IA_PD option to indicate a preference prefix-length hint value in the IA_PD option to indicate a preference
for the size of the prefix to be delegated, but is unclear about how for the size of the prefix to be delegated, but is unclear about how
the client and server should act in different situations involving the client and server should act in different situations involving
the prefix-length hint. This document provides a summary of the the prefix-length hint. This document provides a summary of the
existing problems with the prefix-length hint and guidance on what existing problems with the prefix-length hint and guidance on what
the client and server could do in different situations. the client and server could do in different situations.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
whether the client should ignore other configuration parameters such whether the client should ignore other configuration parameters such
as available addresses. as available addresses.
Solution: Solution:
If the client could use the prefixes included in the Advertise If the client could use the prefixes included in the Advertise
messages despite being different from the prefix-length hint, the messages despite being different from the prefix-length hint, the
client SHOULD choose the shortest prefix length which is closest to client SHOULD choose the shortest prefix length which is closest to
the prefix-length hint. The client SHOULD continue requesting for the prefix-length hint. The client SHOULD continue requesting for
the preferred prefix in the subsequent DHCPv6 messages as defined in the preferred prefix in the subsequent DHCPv6 messages as defined in
section 3.4 of this document section 3.4 of this document.
If the client sent a Solicit with only IA_PDs and cannot use the If the client sent a Solicit with only IA_PDs and cannot use the
prefixes included in the Advertise messages, it MUST ignore the prefixes included in the Advertise messages, it MUST ignore the
Advertise messages and continue to send Solicit messages until it Advertise messages and continue to send Solicit messages until it
gets the preferred prefix. To avoid traffic congestion, the client gets the preferred prefix. To avoid traffic congestion, the client
MUST send Solicit messages at defined intervals, as specified in MUST send Solicit messages at defined intervals, as specified in
[RFC7083]. [RFC7083].
If the client also solicited for other stateful configuration options If the client also solicited for other stateful configuration options
such as IA_NAs and the client cannot use the prefixes included in the such as IA_NAs and the client cannot use the prefixes included in the
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/