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

RE: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether weneed the M/O flags)




Christian,

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 09:29, Christian Huitema wrote:
> I think a whole lot of the issue has to do with the supposedly mandatory nature
> of the M flag, which leads to phrases like "do DHCP, and only if it fails do
> auto-config." It would be much simpler to simply define the flags as
> "announcing an available service", as in:
> 

Hmmm...  My understanding of RFC 2462 section 5.5.3 is that it already
treats the M flag as you said it should.  That is, the M flag does not
prohibit the processing of prefix options.  The same is true of the O
flag.  Is there text elsewhere which implies otherwise?

> 1) The "M" flag is set to indicate that a DHCPv6 address configuration service
> is available on this link, as specified in RFC3315.
> 
> 2) The "O" flag is set to indicate that a DHCPv6 information service is
> available on this link, as specified in RFC3736.
> 
> We should then leave it at that, and leave it to nodes to decide whether they
> want to use these services or not. For example, a server with a configured
> address will never use DHCPv6 address configuration; an appliance that never
> has to resolve DNS names will never use the information service. By setting
> the flags to indicate service availability, we will reduce the amount of
> useless chatter on the link when the services are not in fact available.

I think that this is the approach that was originally intended.  If
there is text in the RFC which says that the M flag and auto-config are
mutually exclusive, that text is wrong and should be corrected.



Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.


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