> From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 1. Is the following text an accurate summary of the previous IETF > consensus on the definition and use of M/O bits: > > The M/O flags indicate the availability of DHCPv6 service for > address assignment and other configuration information, > respectively. The IPv6 specifications make no requirements on the > behavior of DHCPv6 clients in response to the values of the M/O > flags received in RAs.
YES. > 2. Does the IETF choose to continue to accept this consensus or should > the definition of client behavior in response to the M/O flags be > revisited? > 2. YES: Is that consensus adequately described in the IPv6 RFCs or > should > the IPv6 RFCs be revised in some way to describe the consensus > requirements? YES. I don't know how to fix the descriptions, for example a host prepared to support multihoming, would - configure addresses from RA, and - if it sees M/O, it might *also* try to acquire additional addresses from DCHPv6 - if also might acquire IPv4 addresses via DCHPv4, and get the DNS servers from it (to be used for both IPv4 and IPv6 resolutions) Or a host might wait for RA, and see if M/O are set. Depending on some local configuragtion toggle in the host, it could either prefer DHCPv6 or RA address configuration. Or based on some configuration toggle on a host, it could just do DHCPv6 without waiting RA. Or, etc... There are many possible needs for the host, I don't think IETF should limit the possible actions by a too restrictive specification. ps. I still think that the RA could also include DNS server addresses (as proposed by some RFC? Draft?) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
