because thinking was router should be able to tell client use for addresses and not configuration or use just for configuration, or don't even use dhc. no comment on that I agree or disagree this is just what the purpose was. agree or not agree can only happen once people get why what is there is there. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:18 AM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
