Hi Pekka
>
> There is of course one corner case here: if a node running host
> configuration behaviour would omit separate information configuration
> behavior, in case there was no "full DHCPv6" server in the network,
> the host would not get even the Information Configuration unless
> DHCPv6 falled back to sending an information-request in some manner
> (such as we discussed).
>
> Thus it seemed that in the current draft's specification, there were
> some (typically unnecessary) steps when both M and O flags are set and
> the policies set in a certain way, depending on how the DHCP specs are
> to be implemented to fall back when the server would only support
> information configuration.
>
> Does that clarify?
>
The approach that has been taken in the draft is not to invoke the Information Configuraton
Behaviour, when Host Configuration Behaviour is being invoked. This is true even both
M and O flags are set and both the policies are either 1 and 2.
So the issue here is, whether need to invoke the Information Configuration Behaviour
in case the Host Configuration Behaviour fails irrespective of the O flag and its policy.
As you suggested, one could implement fall back to ke the Information Configuration Behaviour
if e Host Configuration Behaviour fails.
Syam
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@xxxxxxxx Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------