> 4 Ability to do DHCP without having to configure routers I'm not sure I'd draw that conclusion. I think the point was that hosts *MAY* ignore any RA "hints" and do what they are manually configured to do - whether that is to run DHCPv6 always or never. But this is not something that needs to be explicitly stated - it is implicit in the current definition of the bits because they are SHOULD, not MUST.
> 3 Ability to limit DHCP use to other configuration only This can be accomplished in two ways - have clients only send Information-Request OR allow them to send Solicits and "fix" DHCPv6 to allow only other configuration parameters to be communicated in an Advertise. Of course, the latter has come interoperatability issues with existing implementations. - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:05 AM > To: Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: [dhcwg] Re: purpose of m/o bit > > On 1-jun-2005, at 13:31, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > We need to agree on requirements before we try to engineer > solutions. > > :-) > > > Here is what I've heard as requirements: > > > 1) Ability to indicate to a host "DHCP is not available on > this link", > > > 2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available DHCP > > configuration with a single DHCP message exchange > > > Comments? > > 3 Ability to limit DHCP use to other configuration only > > And, apparently: > > 4 Ability to do DHCP without having to configure routers > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
