Catching up with things.
I support Christian objection 100%.
Protocols may be implemented in the stack but turned on/off by
configuration.
- Alain.
Christian Huitema wrote:
Also, I think we should revisit this text in the RFC2462bis
effort. Changing the MUST to MAY in the 5.5.2 paragraph l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Deprecating Site Local Addresses
Author(s) : C. Huitema, B. Carp
Here are some comments and suggested text for
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt:
It would be good to use either DHCP or DHCPv6 (but not both) consistently
throughout the doc.
5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
The first two paragraphs are sort of redundant relative to the second
parag
> I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative
> of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is
> even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of
> "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all.
that's completely ridiculous. the
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
> No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of the various message
> exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315.
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the implementation of
> DHCP that provides other configuration info
No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of the various message
exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315.
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the implementation of
DHCP that provides other configuration information but not address assignment.
It might cl
Bob/Brian,
I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative
of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is
even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of
"Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all.
An "organization" could be t
I'm just catching up on this thread ... I was off-line (sleeping) and found
it in my inbox this AM.
I'll follow up in a couple of hours, after I catch up on a couple of
pressing day job issues.
There is another issue with RFC 2462 that will fall somewhere among
clarification/update/revision of the
Hi Tim,
> I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here.
>
> Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for this
> document we can either
>
> a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so that
>is not ideal
>
> b) use language that emphasises
I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here.
Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for this
document we can either
a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so that
is not ideal
b) use language that emphasises whether the client implemen
Tim & Pekka,
I got this comment from Thomas wrt Stateless DHCP:
Does this even need mentioning? I.e, what are the real implications
for clients? Do they need to implement full blown dhc (the client
part)? Or do they implement some subset? (Hmm... reading the related
draft, clients implement
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IES
Hi Tim,
> Remove site-local as we're deprecating them?
I agree. It was an oversite.
> >An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag
> >set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure interfaces
> >with both stateless autoconfiguration addresses and ad
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:13:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
>
>An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be
>unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
>when it is connected to a link over
Hi Pekka,
> >For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes
> should use DHCP
>
> Why do you keep using constructs like this? Why not just:
>
> IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP should use DHCP [...]
Matter of taste. If really bothers you, I can adjust the text.
> >For tho
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It
> > is not clear to which you're referring
Pekka,
> Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It
> is not clear to which you're referring to here.
There is no discussion of stateless DHCP, the section heading is:
5.3 Dynamic Host Configurat
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It
> is not clear to which you're referring to here.
Does that matter to the client?
Tim
Pekka,
> > > Use DHCP for what? both address config (if available) as well?
> >
> > The text says:
> >
> > ... to obtain other configuration.
>
> Yes, in the first sentence. No, in the second.
It can be added to the 2nd sentence.
John
--
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP
Why do you keep using constructs like this? Why not just:
IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP should use DHCP [...]
(the same in the text later.)
>For those IPv6 Nodes (ac
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those
> > >nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with
> > >the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) to obtain other
> > >configuration. In
Hi Thomas,
The 2nd paragraph of the current node requirements draft says
For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those
nodes MUST use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with
the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the
absence
22 matches
Mail list logo
