Christian, On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 09:29, Christian Huitema wrote: > I think a whole lot of the issue has to do with the supposedly mandatory nature > of the M flag, which leads to phrases like "do DHCP, and only if it fails do > auto-config." It would be much simpler to simply define the flags as > "announcing an available service", as in: >
Hmmm... My understanding of RFC 2462 section 5.5.3 is that it already treats the M flag as you said it should. That is, the M flag does not prohibit the processing of prefix options. The same is true of the O flag. Is there text elsewhere which implies otherwise? > 1) The "M" flag is set to indicate that a DHCPv6 address configuration service > is available on this link, as specified in RFC3315. > > 2) The "O" flag is set to indicate that a DHCPv6 information service is > available on this link, as specified in RFC3736. > > We should then leave it at that, and leave it to nodes to decide whether they > want to use these services or not. For example, a server with a configured > address will never use DHCPv6 address configuration; an appliance that never > has to resolve DNS names will never use the information service. By setting > the flags to indicate service availability, we will reduce the amount of > useless chatter on the link when the services are not in fact available. I think that this is the approach that was originally intended. If there is text in the RFC which says that the M flag and auto-config are mutually exclusive, that text is wrong and should be corrected. Tim Hartrick Mentat Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
