NoBinding after confirmation and subsequent REQUEST message
Shankar Anand R
shankaranand at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 18:11:40 UTC 2016
I have a few queries regarding a particular sequence of events described
below. I request for your help in clarifying them.
1. Client reboots and sends out a CONFIRM message with 1 IA_NA
containing 1 IA_ADDR option.
2. Server sends a REPLY with Status code 0 with status message "All
addresses still on link."
3. After some time client sends a RENEW message with same IA_NA and
4. Server, due to some reason, sends a REPLY with status code 3
(NoBinding) with status message "Address not bound to this interface."
5. Client sends out a REQUEST message with 1 IA_NA containing the same
old IA_ADDR option.
6. Server sends a REPLY message with 1 IA_NA containing a new IA_ADDR
1. In what possible scenario would an ISC DHCPv6 server send a "NoBinding"
REPLY to an IA_ADDR which it had recently confirmed to the client? Just to
be clear: the server has not rebooted in between.
2. When the server sends a REPLY message with NoBinding in response to a
RENEW message, RFC 3315 section 18.1.8 says
" When the client receives a Reply message in response to a Renew or Rebind
message, the client examines each IA independently. For each IA in the
original Renew or Rebind message, the client:
- sends a Request message if the IA contained a Status Code option
with the NoBinding status (and does not send any additional
Should this next REQUEST message contain the same IA_ADDR option for which
the server has sent a "NoBinding"?
3. When the server sends a REPLY message with an IA_ADDR which is different
from what the client has asked in it's REQUEST message, what should the
client do? I can see that ISC DHCPv6 client retains both the old IA_ADDR
(which the server had actually a NoBinding) and the new IA_ADDR contained
in the latest REPLY message from the server. This doesn't seem to be
correct to me. Is this the expected behaviour?
Thanks in advance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dhcp-users