Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:16:03 +1000, Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
This is a bit of a rant. Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by the form of the document at the moment, although I think that the function needs to be available.
No need to apologize, I know the proposed concept described in the draft is still immature and needs further detailed discussion. Any positive or negative comments are appreciated.
I think that the problems with the draft are not the policies themselves, but the distinction between
"Stateless DHCPv6" and "Stateful IPv6"
Where these are identified synonymously with 3315 (Stateful) and 3736 (Stateless).
[... snipped]
I now feel I get understanding the point...to make it sure, let me try to rephrase that.
Assume we have a "stateful" DHCPv6 server (that implements RFC3315) running. The server should support both Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply(/and Renew) and Information-request/Reply exchanges.
Then the administrator would send Router Advertisement with the M flag being ON and the O flag being OFF. (The O flag is OFF since there is no server that only supports RFC3736).
Now consider a host that only implements (the client side of) RFC3736, configures global addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration (assuming the RAs provide global prefixes for this), and wants to configure recursive DNS server addresses using RFC3736. However, since the O flag is OFF in advertised RAs, the host would not be able to invoke the RFC3736 procedure and therefore cannot configure DNS server addresses. This should be a suboptimal scenario.
Is this what you're mainly worrying about?
I think that's one of the issues.
It leads to the idea that M|O = 1 can be used to invoke Information-Request.
So in this case, the policy shouldn't be called M policy and O policy since either the M or O flag can be used to invoke Information-Request.
Alternatively,
(where ==> is implies)
If we assume that the O=1 ==> Information Request is available, and we assume that M=1 ==> Rebind/Renew/Request is available,
then the flags have distinct functions which are tied to separate classes of host responses, and the O-Policy, M-Policy are actually "Information-Request" Policy and "Rebind/Renew/Request" Policy, (but are unambiguously named with the O and M, so the names are OK).
I have no problem with this, although it implies that M=1 and O=0 is not a valid advertisement state.
It's important to relize though that a host doesn't invoke RFC 3736 procedures though. The host only cares that it wants to do an Information-Request. 3736 is an implementation hint for DHCPv6 servers and relays, not hosts.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
