On 2011-05-16 07:40, Timothy E. Enos wrote: > Hi Bob, > > Thanks for your reply. I would say that partly because there are so many > different deployment models that MAY is precisely what is informed here. > That said, an acceptable alternative for me would be that it be SHOULD > for both DHCPv6 and SLAAC.
I am certain that SLAAC remains a MUST. We need stand-alone networks to configure themselves; that was a very early requirement for IPng. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
