Hi Robert, I agree with you - this seems very much a node/user policy decision, for the reasons you list below. I don't think the Node Requirements should impose any new behavior here.
thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Robert Elz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 June, 2003 13:57 > To: Alain Durand > Cc: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Next steps on the IPv6 Node requirements draft > > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:23:05 -0700 > From: Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | So what if the M bit is set _and_ a prefix is advertized? > | Should the node give up its stateless autoconfigured > address in favor of > | DHCP? > > No, it should do both. > > | What about statically configured addresses on the same node? > > It should keep that as well, though often if there's to be static > config it will often also be the case that use of stateless autoconfig > and dhcp config will be disabled (either explicitly or implicitly) > > | IMHO, it makes little sense to have both a DHCP allocated > address and a > | stateless autoconfigured address on the same interface. > > In that case, you wouldn't config your routers to send the M bit, and > prefixes with the A bit set, at the same time. > > On the other hand, others may consider it useful to allow nodes to > autoconfigure themselves addresses (so they always gave one, provided > there's a working router to make the address useful) and at the same > time, provide specific addresses to specific nodes (attempting to use > DHCP doesn't necessarily mean the DHCP server will actually allocate > an address) where specific nodes are expected to own well > known addresses. > > | However, I see cases where you want > | to have nodes using DHCP and nodes using stateless > autoconfiguration on > | the same link. > > The very nature of *stateless* autoconfig is that there's no > (easy) way to > configure a node to not do it (manual config on that node > excepted). If > there was, it would not be stateless. So, by default, if > any node on a > link is permitted stateless autoconfig (of a prefix) all nodes are. > > It is generally harmless to own an extra address though, having the > statelessly configured one, as well as a dhcp supplied one should not > cause any harm. > > That is, I don't think receiving a DHCP allocated address should cause > an autoconfig'd address to be dropped, there's no need (doing > do raises > all the questions of what you do if you've been running using the > autoconfig'd address for hours when the dhcp server returns to life > and allocates you an address). > > All that being said - a request to implementors out there. > It would be > very (*very*) nice to have the ability in a node to ignore prefixes > that are being advertised from routers, and never autoconfig > an address > in that prefix. That is, I occasionally see someone advertising a > prefix that I know doesn't work (they're getting ready for the day it > will work, and have just jumped the gun - believing in early > preparation > or something). I'd like to be able to ignore that (no matter what > router advertises it - so lower level packet filtering doesn't help). > > kre > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
