Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Ralph Droms
I was writing in response to Christian's comments about potential interaction between sdtateless address autoconfiguration and DHCpv6 on a host. As you said, in the current architecture all hosts on a link see the same RAs and will use stateless address autoconfiguration and DHCPv6 in the same way

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Durand, Alain
> -Original Message- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:28 AM > To: Christian Huitema; Fred Baker; Thomas Narten > Cc: Durand, Alain; IPv6 Mailing List; Bob Hinden > Subject: Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > > There is very li

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Durand, Alain
> -Original Message- > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:22 AM > To: Fred Baker; Thomas Narten > Cc: Durand, Alain; Bob Hinden; IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > >> We went through that before.

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Ralph Droms
There is very little to be said about auto-conf/DHCPv6 interaction: DHCPv6 and stateless address auto-configuration and the addresses assigned through each process are independent of each other. A node may run either, both or neither DHCPv6 and SLAAC. How are privacy addresses an issue? - Ralph

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Durand, Alain
> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:48 PM > To: Durand, Alain > Cc: Bob Hinden; IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis > > No, it means that if you don't invoke DHC to get addresses, >

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Christian Huitema
> More to the point, if you are in a shop that has decided to allocate > addresses by DHCP, calculating an address via autoconfiguration is > the wrong answer. Not because it is politically correct or otherwise, > but because it is the policy of the network, and the IETF doesn't get > to decide th

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Fred Baker
On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: I'm not sure I understand the last part of the sentence... Does it means that addresses configured via stateless address autoconfiguration are -also- availabe via DHCP? No, it means that if you don't invoke DHC to get addresses, you won't

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Bernie Volz \(volz\)
I like Thomas's suggested changes. Though I think that "are available" is a bit presumptuous? It may well be that the DHCPv6 server does not exist or that there are no additional addresses for that client. The M-bit means run stateful DHCPv6 to see what you get, if anything. - Bernie > -Orig

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Ralph Droms
I missed one nit: s/bit/flag/: set, the setting of the O bit is irrelevant, since the DHCPv6 - Ralph IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Ralph Droms
In the interest of simplicity and consistency (note that the protocol in question is referred to as DHCP or DHCPv6 through all of specifications [as well as in the original version of this text], not "DHC"), I suggest the text below. Comments on previous earlier text: including addresses that

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Thomas Narten
"Manfredi, Albert E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with the questions Tim and Alain brought up. How is this text, > only slightly changed (asterisks mark the changes): > > M : > > 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When > > set, it indicates that addresses a

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Thomas Narten
"Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > M : 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it > > indicates that addresses are available via Dynamic Host > > Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6], including addresses that were > > not configured via stateless address

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Manfredi, Albert E
I agree with the questions Tim and Alain brought up. How is this text, only slightly changed (asterisks mark the changes): > M : > 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When > set, it indicates that addresses are available via > Dynamic Host Configuration Protoc

Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Tim Chown
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:36:18PM -0600, Bob Hinden wrote: >M : >1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it > indicates >that addresses are available via Dynamic Host Configuration > Protocol >[DHCPv6], including addresses that were not configured vi

RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Durand, Alain
> M : > 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it indicates > that addresses are available via Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol > [DHCPv6], including addresses that were not configured via stateless > address autoconfiguration. I'm not sur

Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis

2006-03-21 Thread Bob Hinden
Hi, At the Vancouver meeting we discussed clarifying the use of the M&O bits in Neighbor Discovery Router Advertisements. I made a proposal to drop and instead to just change the text describing the M&O bits in ipv6-2461bis-06.txt> along the lines as Thomas Narten suggested on the IPv6