> Op 11 mrt. 2017, om 14:09 heeft Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> het volgende > geschreven: > > Paul Oranje <p...@xs4all.nl> writes: > >> Small addition (the following may be non-obvious to those not involved >> in this discussion). Just saw that A_TA does not have renewal (T1) or >> rebinding (T2) fields and for that reason cannot suit a use-case like >> a IA just for a work shift. > > RFC 3315 section 22.5: > > An IA_TA option does not include values for T1 and T2. A client MAY > request that the lifetimes on temporary addresses be extended by > including the addresses in a IA_TA option sent in a Renew or Rebind > message to a server. For example, a client would request an > extension on the lifetime of a temporary address to allow an > application to continue to use an established TCP connection. > > > But I'm not convinced temporary addresses fits that use case. The use-case that Eric gave as an example - as I understood it - concerns policies that are enforced at the server side; at the client site “management" cannot enforce anything.
> In any case, there are existing client implementations of IA_TA (for > example ISC dhclient and dibbler) and RFC7721 stable IIDs (for example > Linux kernel and NetworkManager). Maybe you can create a patch that would implement IA_TA in odhcpd, if that isn’t implemented yet (I do not know, have a look at the code). That would satisfy another use case. > > > Bjørn > > _______________________________________________ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
