On Apr 28, 2004, at 9:29 AM, 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:
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 totally agree. More, there are cases where the hosts are using another external configuration
mechanisms and forcing them to use DHCPv6 would be inappropriate.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
