>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:21:55 +0200,
>>>>> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> Are 1) and 3) mutually exclusive, or is the requirement to have some
>>> M/O combination that says "There is no DHCP, do not try to find it"
>>> and another combination that says "I make so representation about the
>>> DHCP status so you're free to have a look for it"? Or have I
>>> completely
>>> missed the point?
>> Requirement 1 simply says "DHCP is not available"; it doesn't say "do
>> not try to find it".
> I disagree. On some networks it's inappropriate to try to use DHCPv6.
You can disagree about anything, but please remember that we are (or
at least I'm) currently concentrating on listing points raised so far,
without discussing whether each point is valid or not. And, in fact,
there has actually been an opposite opinion to yours in the past
discussion.
Can we hold off expressing opinions on the possible requirements a bit
while, please? Otherwise, we'll soon see a strom of different
opinions as we've seen in the previous threads. (Such a storm is
perhaps inevitable in the next phase of this discussion though).
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
