Hi Ralph, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Droms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fred Templin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stig Venaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:56 PM Subject: Re: Stateful != M , Stateless != O
> I disagree with the interpretation of M=0. > > M has no impact on stateless autoconf. The existence > of prefixes in the RA marked as "autoconf from this > prefix" controls stateless autoconf. If M=0 and no > prefixes are advertised as autoconf-able, the host > has no assertion that DHCP is available and no prefixes > to autoconf addresses from. > > If M=1 and autoconf prefixes are available, the host > does both DHCP and stateless autoconf. Why is that any host needs to get two addresses? Is there any scenario where this is useful? I think the router shoud advertise imfomation such a way that the host configures the address using one of the methods (Stateless or Stateful). Also I think node should decide which method to use for configuring address after collecting the information from the RAs, i.e. it should invoke either DHCPv6 or Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. -Syam > > - Ralph > > At 01:18 PM 8/12/2004 -0700, Fred Templin wrote: > > >Stig Venaas wrote: > > > >>My thinking is: > >> > >>M=0, O=0 stateless autoconf of addresses > >>M=0, O=1 stateless autoconf of addresses + information-request > >>M=1, O=0 stateful autoconf of addresses > > > >It seems from these discussions that a more precise > >representation might be: > > > > M=0, O=0 stateless autoconf of addresses > > M=0, O=1 stateless autoconf of addresses + information-request > > M=1, O=X stateful autoconf of addresses + information-request > > > >where, X = "Don't-Care". Does this match up with the emerging > >consensus? Is there really nothing better to be done with the > >"O" bit when the "M" bit is set? > > > >Thanks - Fred > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
