[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)

I think the O flag (if we keep it!) should simply specify DHCPv6, with no
implication about the way in which DHCPv6 is used.

"Stateless DHCPv6" is simply a way to use some of the messages from the full
specification in RFC 3315.  RFC 3376 is a guideline to the implementation of
DHCPv6 that uses just Information-request/Reply messages.  A client can
choose to use the Request/Reply or the Information-request/Reply message
exchange to obtain other configuration information without address assignment.

- Ralph

At 01:28 PM 4/28/2004 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 07:28:39PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> >
> > My point in this message is that IMO we should specify the protocols
> > corresponding to these flags clearly and concretely, without leaving
> > any ambiguity (I've changed the subject accordingly.)  That is, I
> > strongly believe we should clearly say in rfc2462bis, *for example*,
> >
> > - the protocol that should be invoked by the M flag is DHCPv6
> >   (RFC3315), and nothing else
> > - the protocol that should be invoked by the O flag is stateless
> >   DHCPv6 (RFC3736), and nothing else
>But in reality nodes will have full DHCPv6 client support in them (3315)
>whether or not they then see the M or O flag that is what they will use?
>All the DHCPv6 servers implemented to date, to my knowledge, are 3315 and
>not the 3736 subset.
>So it is better to just say O flag is other (non address) configuration
>data, regardless of full/subset of DHCPv6 used?
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6