Hi Bernie, I'm well aware that stateful (DHCPv6, RFC 3315) and SLAC (RFC 2462) are independent of one another; not sure what in my question was unclear. While not required, I do appreciate the explanation. However my question is answered in RFC 3315, page 33 (section 17.1.2) quoted below:
"A DHCP client SHOULD choose MRC and MRD to be 0. If the DHCP client is configured with either MRC or MRD set to a value other than 0, it MUST stop trying to configure the interface if the message exchange fails. After the DHCP client stops trying to configure the interface, it SHOULD restart the reconfiguration process after some external event, such as user input, system restart, or when the client is attached to a new link." My question was whether or not there are any existing implementations wherein a DHCPv6 client, after its MRC (being a positive integer) is reached, will then (as a backup or alternate method) seek to use SLAC. If so, they would clearly be in violation of the MUST as quoted above. The original question in this thread seemed to be about the M and O flags. I'd reaffirm that I agree with your contention on 16May05, 10:04am, quoted below: "In IPv6, the M and O flag should serve as hints. Period. A host is perfectly free to do what it wants (or what it has been configured to do)." Best regards, Tim 1Sam16:7 -----Original Message----- From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:41 PM To: timothy enos; Pekka Savola Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 WG; JINMEI Tatuya / ???? Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt Tim: I'm not sure what you mean by your question ... SLAC (stateless auto-configuration) is independent of stateful. There may be some prefixes on a link that are stateful (0 or more) and others that are stateless (0 or more - excluding the link-local which is always stateless). So, SLAC is independent of stateful (DHCPv6). - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: timothy enos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:00 PM > To: Bernie Volz (volz); 'Pekka Savola' > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); 'IPv6 WG'; 'JINMEI > Tatuya / ????' > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last > Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt > > Bernie, > > Your points are well taken, and I agree. Making these flags 'hints' > makes sense. Also, it seems that if a client does not know what to do > (forgive the anthropomorphism) in response to having received > an RA with > the M (and O) bit(s) set (because it is not a DHCPv6 client), it would > just ignore it/them. > > Also wondering if there are any RFC 3315-capable clients that, after > failing to get config info from a DHCPv6 server 'x' times, > would revert > to SLAC? > > Tim Enos > 1Sam16:7 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
