Hi Jim, Bound, Jim wrote: > Mat, > >> stateful/stateless is of no concern to the client, right? so if the >> initiator is always the same, then the question of authority becomes >> moot. > > Let me restate I don't think you parsed my question, which > may have been > unclear in hingsight?
I think there has been some confusion wrt stateful/stateless address allocation vs. stateful/stateless DHCPv6. > For an IPv6 link the RA informs nodes whether they are permitted to > use stateful, the default preference is stateless, meaning DO NOT USE > DHCPv6 for anything, unless I set a bit that informs you that your > permitted to use stateful on this link. Yes, agreed. Going further, maybe A=0 could signal this? > Do you disagree with that the IPv6 Link uses this model. No I don't disagree, I think we are in violent agreement. -- Mat -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
