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
> -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
> -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.
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
> -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,
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
"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
"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
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
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
> 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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo