>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:40:45 +0200,
>>>>> Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Yes, your original analysis is correct...
>>
>> Seems like the protocol associated with the 'O' bit should be RFC 3736;
>> there is no particular advantage to using the 4 message exchange of RFC 3315
>> for "other configuration information". The only potential advantage would
>> be if there is ever a need for "other configuration information" that needs
>> atateful assignment; we've never found a need for such assignment in DHCPv4.
> I wouldn't rule this out completely. I think normally RFC 3736 will be
> the reasonable thing to do. But if client for some reason wants some
> stateful info it could still try to use RFC 3315 I think.
> Just as examples, you could imagine client using RFC 3315 to get an IPv4
> address or IPv6 multicast address. Or it could be none-address resources.
I would say this kind of configuration information is out of scope of
the discussion for the O flag. IMO, such information is rather
"managed" one corresponding to the M flag (of course, opinions on this
may vary because the meaning of the "other" configuration is not very
clear in RFC2462).
> Note that I don't really want to discuss the need for IPv4 or multicast
> address assignment here. But I'm not sure one should say that client always
> must stick to the RFC 3736 subset.
We can always imagine any possibility. Considering reality, however,
I would leave it for future extensions instead of including it in the
scope of the O flag.
First, as Ralph said, this is the reality from experiences of DHCPv4.
Secondly, the combination mess I explained in an earlier message would
be very likely to happen (even though it's just a "theoretical
analysis" right now:) whereas the possibility you raised is an
imaginary one at the moment as you yourself noticed.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
