> >> 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. > > I completely agree with Ralph. > > > Why is that any host needs to get two addresses? > > Is there any scenario where this is useful? > > I don't think this is the right question. The question should be, > IMO, "why should we prohibit the simultaneous use of stateful and > stateless?"
My question is, why should we allow simultaneous use of Stateful and Statless methods independently to get the address? > > And I don't see any reason to prohibit that, though there may be no > useful scenario at least for now. Aren't we consuming one extra address? May be IPv6 supports many addresses, this may not be a problem. > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
