Brian Haberman wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Brian Haberman wrote: > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>>Hi Ralph, > >>> > >>>The text looks really good, what do other thinks? Does anyone > >>>have a preference for Stateful Address Autoconfiguration to be > >>>a SHOULD or a MAY? > >> > >>I tend to agree with the SHOULD. Since these nodes recognize the > >>'M' & 'O' bit-settings, they should be capable of acting on their > >>settings. > >> > >>Brian > > > > > > Does that follow? DHCP strikes me very much as a discretionary > > thing. I think vendors will know when to support it, so a MAY > > seems enough to me. > > My concern is the scenario where an operator knowingly disables > prefix advertisements and enables DHCPv6. If the nodes doesn't > do DHCP, it is stuck with only the link-local address.
Understood. That certainly deserves a health warning. But in large scale deployments of low-end devices, implementors need to feel free to leave DHCP out. Brian C -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
