Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Thomas Narten > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:11 PM > To: Brzozowski, John > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Bob Hinden > Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD > > > Is the intention for the new text to relax the requirement for > > auto-configuration? > > No. SLAAC remains a MUST. DHCPv6 though is now a SHOULD. > > For one thing, DHCP doesn't have an option configure on-link prefixes, > so we still need SLAAC.
Not all links will necessarily require on-link prefixes. For those, DHCPv6 alone may be sufficient. Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > What we should have done oh-so-long-ago is ensure that you could > configure/operate a network with just DHCP (and no SLAAC at all) and > vice versa, and than made both a MUST on hosts. That way, operators > truly have the choice as to which to use and everything would just > work. > > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
