Jim et al, At the risk of covering old ground, one question I had is whether a client must wait to receive an RA before initiating stateless or stateful DHCPv6? Asked another way, can DHCPv6 still be used if there are no advertising routers on the link?
To an even more speculative question, if we had it all to do over again would it be possible (or desireable) to design things such that DHCPv6 and IPv6 ND messages could be "piggybacked" within a single packet? (This begs the question of whether the DHCPv6 server/relay and IPv6 router entities are co-resident on the same node in the normal case.) Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be really nice and handy to initiate either stateless or > > stateful DHCPv6 with the same message. If so, we wouldn't need > > the M/O bits anymore. In this case the client would simply initiate > > a(n Information) Request message and would get all the information > > that are available on the link, including an address or not. > > So you don't believe that the RA in ND should be the authority to use a > stateful model on an IPv6 link? > > /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
