Why? If we update the DHCPv6 protocol to allow "other configuration" options to be returned in an Advertise for a Solicit, Information-Request/Reply and Solicit/Advertise are then essentially the same in a stateless DHCPv6 environment (though the Solicit does require a client identifier and likely may require a IA_* option).
Note that this will require changes to 3315 and 3736 - since stateless servers will need to respond to Solicits with Advertises. Clients that can do full 3315, would. And, if no stateful DHCPv6 server is available but a stateless is, it will get "other configuration parameters". Clients that only do 3736 would do that and get "other configuration parameters". I think if we have two bits, we'll just be back to some of the edge conditions (what if M is set, but O isn't, etc). These changes would potentially cause some issues with any deployments today because the clients and servers do not support this "new" behavior, but it that's why it is critical we work this out ASAP. However, those clients, if they use the M & O bits, could continue to do what they do today -- since both bits are available. It is just new clients with old servers that may have issues. - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:07 AM > To: Bernie Volz (volz) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ralph Droms (rdroms); > dhcwg@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit > > On 27-mei-2005, at 14:56, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote: > > > I think if we come to agreement on having no distinction between the > > bits, we should deprecate one of the bits (O-bit?); though for > > backwards > > compatibility, we can't remove/reassign it until many years from > > now (if > > ever). > > I think having M = 0, O = 1 would be useful as an indication that > clients should use the simplified stateless DHCPv6 rather than the > full DHCPv6. > > And I would object to any deprecation on the basis that there isn't > enough operational experience to be able to make a good decision. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
