>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:17:31 +1000,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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.
Okay, I think I now almost understand the point, but before going
further, please let me make one last question for clarification.
> 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.
Why? In this (i.e., the latter) scenario, does M=1/O=0 simply mean
that (Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply and)Rebind/Renew/Request is
available but Information Request is not? Perhaps this is
inconvenient, but I don't see why this combination is invalid.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
