On 1-jun-2005, at 14:25, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
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
Treating RA information that DHCPv6 servers aren't available as a
hint and ignoring the hint is an implementation of the ability to do
DHCP without having to configure routers.
- 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.
Doing DHCPv6 when there is positive knowledge that there is no DHCPv6
server is suboptimal, and may have nasty security implications.
(Especially when we get SEND for secure RAs.) It is also very
wasteful in bandwidth constrained environments. It is of course
possible to implement all kinds of heuristics to determine where and
when we can do DHCPv6 when the hints say "don't do it", but I think
upgrading from "yes / no" to "yes / default behavior / no" makes more
sense.
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.
Right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
