On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:39:53PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > 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. 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. Stig -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
