But it is possible to change the meaning of A=0 to mean use dhc if you
have it.
Also multiple prefixes can be provided.
L and A are orthogonal. If you set L and not A all that was stated is
use these for link knowlege but not for autoconfigure.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik N
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the comments. Please see my replies inline.
Cheers
Suresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good morning all. I'm aware this draft is in AD Review/AD Follow-up
status, and hope this is an appropriate time to raise questions (none
being rhetorical) and issues. I'd greatly appreciate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, agreed. Going further, maybe A=0 could signal this?
But the A flag is per prefix, not per RA.
And so far we haven't assigned any semantics to a flag in the prefix
being zero; the semantics are associated with the flags being set to one.
That model seems to be use
Thanks for the response Jim, and not looking to cause ratholes. Not sure on all
points, but I agree that we should not be trying to legislate (or anticipate)
policies in any mechanisms we specify.
There was also a wording gaffe in the phrase: "one question I had"; the intent
was not to satisfy
Mat,
> Yes, agreed. Going further, maybe A=0 could signal this?
Not bad Mat. That might actually work. Kudos to your logic parsing
here. In our fury to make sure we told clients use stateless we added
the M bit. O bit was an anomaly IMO. Need to roll this around in my
brain with implementer
Christian,
I can live with a SHOULD (I was using MUST to get folks to respond
:--)). I just don't think we can have our cake and eat it too, it is an
immature view to try. We also have to realize for any spec
implementations will always support what the customer wants in cases of
choices over th
Hi Jim,
Bound, Jim wrote:
> Mat,
>
>> stateful/stateless is of no concern to the client, right? so if the
>> initiator is always the same, then the question of authority becomes
>> moot.
>
> Let me restate I don't think you parsed my question, which
> may have been
> unclear in hingsight?
I thi
On 3-jun-2005, at 8:38, Christian Schild wrote:
I don't believe that suppression of (client) DHCPv6 packets is
enforceable. What if the client is not pleased with what he got?
Whether something is enforceable is not the point. The IETF can't
enforce _anything_, that's a given.
What's impor
On 3-jun-2005, at 0:00, Templin, Fred L wrote:
At the risk of covering old ground,
Yeah, we wouldn't want that. :-)
one question I had is whether a client must wait to receive an RA
before initiating stateless or stateful DHCPv6?
How would it know the value of the M and O bits if it didn
