-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Mon 4/17/2006 11:18 PM
>To: Erik Nordmark; Thomas Narten
>Cc: IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis
>
>On 4/17/06 5:51 PM, "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>>>> I think making that a SHOULD is premature and too strong, since we
>>>> haven't explored what the desirable behaviors are when both M and A
>>>> bits are set.
>
>I disagree - the M and A flags are independent of each other. When both are
>set, the host uses SAAC to assign itself an address on the advertised
>prefix, and uses DHCP to have addresses and other configuration information
>assigned from the DHCP service.
>
>Whether or not that configuration makes any sense is an operational issue,
>not a protocol issue.
This *is* a protocol issue because of the way default address selection works.
BTW, M&A bot set *is* a valid configuration, where on the same subnet
one would like to use both servers that want to use nothing but DHCP and
laptops who are perfectly happy with stateless autoconf (or small devices
who do not have implemented anything else)
IMHO, the real problem with those bits is that their scope is wrong,
it applies indiferently on all nodes on the link, and I think this is not
correct.
Such a scope is fine for things like basic RS/RA, but config information
is to be applied on a per node basis, and not subnet wide.
This is the reason why I'm opposing the SHOULD for M&O.
BTw, I agreee with a previous post, there is no reason anymore to have two bits
fot that. The only thing that IMHO those bits mean is that DHCP service is
available,
i.e. there is either a DHCP server on the subnet or there is a relay agent.
Trying to differentiate on the capabilities of the said DHCP server
(full DHCP or only "other parameters" is meaningless, so I think
we could live with only one indicaive bit here.
- Alain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
