> > > On 5/13/11 1:56 PM, "ext james woodyatt" <j...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 2011, at 11:34 , Cameron Byrne wrote: >>> On May 13, 2011 11:28 AM, "james woodyatt" > <j...@apple.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Mobile hosts SHOULD implement DHCPv6 clients. >>> > I wouldn't oppose elevating the requirement further still to > say that >>> mobile hosts MUST implement DHCPv6 clients. >>> >>> Why? Most mobile v6 nodes do not support it today. [...] >> >> I was thinking about RFC 3775, section 11.5.2, which says: >> >> As described in Section 4, in order to form a new care-of address, a >> mobile node MAY use either stateless [13] or stateful (e.g., DHCPv6 >> [29]) Address Autoconfiguration. > > How a MIP6 (or DSMIP6) MN configures the IPv6 CoA has no bearing on the > present discussion. > I do agree with Cameron that a MUST for mobile devices is a bad idea.
I think it would be much cheaper to implement DHCPv6 client on a mobile than SLAAC code. --b -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
