Hi,
We tried to summarize the discussion on M/O flags, but we (authors of
the M/O flags) were busy with other things, so we could not do that. But
from the discussion we found three different opinions
1. Leave M/O Flags unchanged
2. Flags independently represent DHCPv6 and DHCP lite (M-flag for HCB,
O-Flag for ICB)
3. M-Flag (to hint) for triggering DHC (Remove O-flag)
Even in the case of 1 we would like to put some text to clarify the flags
usage.
We are planning to trim draft-ietf-ipv6-ra- mo-flags-01.txt without policy
variables.
Also it may be worth to see what could be the impacts of case 2 and case 3
from DHCP perspective as well as from IPv6 perspective. If at we decide to
change better to go for 3, otherwise just clarify them about their (M/O
flags)
usage and leave them as it is.
Regards,
Syam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Droms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tim Chown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robert Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian Haberman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <dhcwg@ietf.org>; <ipv6@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: Draft agenda
Tim - my memory is also that the discussion tapered off without a
conclusion.
I do remember getting a summary e-mail from Bob and Brian (ipv6 WG
chairs) about "no consensus for changing M/O bits at this point" (but I
can't locate that e-mail); however, my memory of the discussion is that
there were two interleaved discussions: (1) improve documentation of
what was in the RFC 246[012] specs and (2) consider changes
(improvements) to spec for M/O bits and DHCPv6. So, I'm unclear about
any conclusions...
I've included the ipv6 WG chairs and the authors of draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-
mo-flags-01.txt in the CC: list; can any of you clarify the resolution
of the discussion, and should the discussion appear on the ipv6 or dhc
(or both) WG agendas?
- Ralph
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:45 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:38:21PM -0400, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Also, what's happened with the M/O bit discussion? Has this been
> resolved in the IPv6 WG or are they expecting us to do anything? Should
> that be an agenda item?
I think it should, at least briefly.
My recollection is that the discussion fizzled out without a conclusion.
There is a specifc (newish) draft on the topic:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
I'm not sure how strong consensus is on the contents of this draft.
One of the issues was that there are two bits, with four combinations,
one of which is 'meaningless'. But then an administrator should never
use that combination. People still seem to see some 'confusion' in
the semantics. While questions keep hitting the ipv6 list, one can argue
that the M/O text is certainly not as clear/streamlined as it could be.
Some argued whether a DHC service indication was needed at all. Just let
the client back off. One question was over unecessary use of
bandwidth/battery on low capacity wireless devices - a hint that no DHC
was available would then be useful rather than the client retrying.
There were some interesting ideas, e.g. that perhaps all stateless DHC
servers could respond to the same message types as stateful - I think the
JOIN people suggested that. Presumably you'd then only need the M bit,
given M and O semantics were being ushered towards the message type.
I don't like the idea of changing things now without larger deployment
experience, and I recall most people agreed that was lacking.
Anyway, Ralph/Stig should maybe check that the topic is on the ipv6 WG
agenda and take it from there, since ipv6 is held on Tuesday and dhc is
on Thursday.
Tim
_______________________________________________
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
