[dhcwg] Re: Non-unique IA-Prefix address in Advertise IA-PD

There might be a nuance with prefixes.
What if the prefix length is different between advertise and reply. Wouldn’t the server violate its promise in that case?

Avertise: “Hey miss client, pick me I can give you a /48”. Reply: “Now that you picked me, here’s a lousy /80”. 

Cheers 
Ole

> On 9 Jul 2024, at 04:55, Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> While unusual, what is in the Advertise is not mandated to being unique. It is the Reply to the Request that creates the binding, and that must be unique.
> 
> Many (probably most) seevers temporarily assign a prefix (or address) when sending the Advertise, but there is no such requirement. So, if a server doesn’t it probably keeps getting the same free prefix until a client does the Request to create the binding.
> 
> - Bernie (from iPad)
> 
>> On Jul 8, 2024, at 9:38 PM, Mukund Sivaraman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone
>> 
>> Is it correct DHCPv6 behavior if in an IA-PD option the same IA-Prefix
>> address is advertised to several clients within the interval of a second
>> so long as no client has requested it? (There are other free prefixes
>> available.)  We have a dhcpd which is doing this, and I don't see any
>> language in RFC 8415 preventing it.
>> 
>>       Mukund
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]