I don't know of any implementations which depend on these bits for DHCPv6 invocation or termination. That doesn't mean that none exist.
Also, the whole "other config" issue is still very much in a state of flux. Since those mechanisms haven't been defined yet, we can't be sure whether the M and especially O bits would be benificial to those mechanisms. So removing them *now* would be premature if nothing else.
(For instance, if we settle on well-known addresses for DNS + DHCPv6, then having the O bit will presumably be a good thing, as an unset O bit indicates that a host can just go to the WKA DNS immediately. Without the O bit it would either have query a DHCP server and time out if there are none available, or use the WKA DNS while querying the DHCP server and possibly the DNS query will time out if the well known addresses are unavailable.)
There are multiple router implementations which allow these bits to be
advertised. What is the upside in making these implementations obsolete
at this late date?
I assert there is no upside. Just look at the whole ip6.int / ip6.arpa thing. Changing stuff that's out there in the real world just to make the specs look prettier is a very bad idea.
Are we so short of other work that we need to waste time on breaking things
which are already working? I don't get it.
Agree 100%.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
