>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:05:33 -0700,
>>>>> "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> (In the followings, I'm assuming we have agreed that
>>
>> - we should clearly specify the corresponding protocols for the M/O
>> flags
>> - the protocol for the M flag is DHCPv6 (RFC3315)
>> - the protocol for the O flag is the "stateless" subset of DHCPv6
>> (RFC3736)
>> From an operational point of view, it makes a lot of sense to use "M" to say that
>> stateful DHCPv6 is available, and "O" to say that the stateless subset is
>> available. This gives a good hint to the host: they should not attempt to use
>> stateful DHCPv6 to obtain addresses or other parameters if the M flag is not set;
>> they may attempt to use stateless DHCPv6 to obtain other parameters if the O flag
>> is set.
> Doing otherwise leads to interoperability issues, e.g. a host attempting to use
> stateful DHCPv6 to obtain a configuration parameter when the local network only
> supports stateless operation.
Apparently this comment should apply to a separate thread entitled
"the protocol for the O flag".
BTW: do you have any comments on the other parts of my proposal (for
which I'm mainly waiting in this thread)?
Thanks,
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
