On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:23:55AM +0900, hyunwook cha wrote: > What if DHCPv6 servers do not exist? AFAIK, in this thread, the cost > of unnecessary multicast DHCPv6 messages which may be prevented > through M&O bits are being discussed.
That's a separate issue. Iljitsch is proposing that Multicasts must be reduced to as close to zero as possible, as a performance criteria. If that's truly your goal, then RA is the wrong solution from the start: it MUST use far more multicasts. Further... If a client sends a DHCPv6 packet, it is because it requires some DHCPv6 configuration to use network services. If you do not reply to that client, you are not doing it a service. It is not 'connected to the Internet', it is operating at a lower level of service; without appropriate configuration. > This does not comply with RFC4862. See section 5.4. I'm not really concerned with RFC 4862. RFC 3315 only lists DAD as a SHOULD. Someone trying to save radio transmit power, as Iljitsch suggests, would be better served to capitalize on DHCPv6 without DAD than to waste airtime needlessly with SLAAC. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpCdByOLmEM0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
