Thomas: I fully agree with you.
I think these two bits have consumed way more time than they should have - they'll probably go down as the most contested two bits in the history of the IETF. For something so simple, it is utterly crazy. - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:34 AM > To: Durand, Alain > Cc: Erik Nordmark; IPv6 Mailing List; Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Subject: Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > > "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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
