I can think of several possible resolutions:
1. just say that it's host/network administrator's responsibility to provide consistent parameters/configurations. In this sense, the combination of a) and b) above is just a configuration error. This would be the most lightweight resolution for the authors:-), but I personally think it's irresponsible.
I agree as well. This is not good enough.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a configuration mismatch is admin error and leave it at that - in this case, the RAs are configured incorrectly, promising that a non-existent address assignment service is available.
That would be consistent if the presence of M-flag would only trigger DHCPv6 for address assignment, but DHCPv6 would not be used to configure anything else at all unless O-flag was also appropriately set.
Then the DHCPv6 and DHCPv6-lite would function in a similar fashion from the network administrator's perspective.
So, IMHO, either we must require O flag always for Information Configuration (whether DHCPv6 full or lite) or support the administrators who can't make out the subtle difference about the appropriate configuration of the flags. For that, guidance for full DHCPv6 implementers to also try emulating DHCPv6 lite would probably be sufficient.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
