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

Re: Stateful != M , Stateless != O



No responses yet; for myself, I consider this subject as a
thoroughly-whipped dead horse. (Others are welcome to
continue, of course...)

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Fred Templin wrote:

>
> Stig Venaas wrote:
>
>> My thinking is:
>>
>> M=0, O=0 stateless autoconf of addresses
>> M=0, O=1 stateless autoconf of addresses + information-request
>> M=1, O=0 stateful autoconf of addresses
>>
>
> It seems from these discussions that a more precise
> representation might be:
>
>  M=0, O=0 stateless autoconf of addresses
>  M=0, O=1 stateless autoconf of addresses + information-request
>  M=1, O=X stateful autoconf of addresses + information-request
>
> where, X  = "Don't-Care". Does this match up with the emerging
> consensus? Is there really nothing better to be done with the
> "O" bit when the "M" bit is set?
>
> Thanks - Fred
> ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------




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