"Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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)
This is the crux of the fundamental underlying disagreement we are having on what we are trying to solve here. In my view, it is nuts to have devices "that choose to implement only stateless addrconf" because they are "simple" or "perfectly happy" or something. If we go down this route, it is not an operational choice whether to run DHC, because implementations have already made that choice. If folk chose not to implement DHC or stateless addrconf, that is fine, and that is their choice. But the consequences may well be that they can't get addresses in all environments. We need to be clear/truthful about that. You seem to be suggesting that this is not acceptable and that instead, operations need to provide stateless addr conf in all cases since some devices may require that. Is this _really_ what you intend? Having the M&O bits say "use dhc" (if you have implemented it) or "don't bother with DHC" is useful, independent of the above. But what seems to be happening now (as in the past) is that the M&O bits are being viewed as somehow mandating the implementation of DHC, and folk don't want that. IMO, having the M bit say "invoke DHC" does not mandate implementing DHC any more than having an RA a Prefix Information Option with the "A" bit set "mandates" that one MUST implement stateless address autoconfiguration. And, BTW, I know of one implementation that does NOT implement stateless addr conf and isn't all bent of out shape the specs seeming to require (or not require) implementation of stateless autoconfiguration. So I really do not understand why we are making such a big deal out of this. Chairs, Perhaps we need to just accept that we can't get consensus on revised wording for the M&O bits and leave the text unchanged relative to RFC2461? It's long past time for getting closure on this issue and moving on, yet we continue to have the same back-and-forth on the mailing list. :-( Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
