On Aug 17, 2007, at 17:31, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
[I wrote:]
On a related note, I've heard that some operators intend to deploy
DHCP
service using RA with M=1 and no PIO. I don't understand how
they imagine the "on-link flag" to be propagated in that scenario.
The "on-link flag" seems
James,
Wrt to what you asked as follows put within square brackets by me
followed by my reply.
[On a related note, I've heard that some operators intend to deploy DHCP
service using RA with M=1 and no PIO. I don't understand how
they imagine the "on-link flag" to be propagated in that scenario
On Aug 17, 2007, at 13:22, James Carlson wrote:
james woodyatt writes:
into ManagedFlag. If the value of ManagedFlag changes from
FALSE to
TRUE, and the host is not already running the stateful address
autoconfigu
james woodyatt writes:
> >into ManagedFlag. If the value of ManagedFlag changes from FALSE to
> >TRUE, and the host is not already running the stateful address
> >autoconfiguration protocol, the host should invoke the
On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
To stop unnecessary DHCP traffic. [...]
I think what we're seeing here is a vocal faction of the community
who believe that DHCP discovery multicasts are always necessary,
whether RA is present or not, and whether M=0 or M=1, despite t
On 17-aug-2007, at 18:41, James Woodyatt wrote:
One wonders why they would bother waiting in the first place given
the significant probability that DHCP service is deployed without
any RA whatsoever.
So, it seems natural to ask... what good is the M bit anyway?
To stop unnecessary DHCP t
Jinmei-san - I fully agree that it would be a good idea to hold off
on this discussion until an I-D is published.
One small correction...the originators of the discussion about "rogue
RAs" are network admins who have real-world experience with IPv6
deployments. I wouldn't consider them as
"Beliefs" are irrelevant; we need to consider facts and requirements.
Assigned addresses have nothing intrinsically to do with on-link. In
the common case, an address on an interface is quite likely to be in
a prefix that is on-link. But on-link-ness is a property used for
outbound traffi
> Unless anyone can mention a lot of potential IPv6 deployments that
will
> deploy IPv6 without a router sending RA, it's not even worth
discussing
> the subject.
ISATAP links have routers that send RAs, but not all nodes on
the link will necessarily receive them. A node on an ISATAP
link can alwa
Ralph,
I couldn't agree with you more. I don't like entangling prefix
information with address assignment. It is so IPv4 thinking. I am off
this discussion now since I don't believe in any IPv6 network that
deploys DHCPv6 without a router or deployment where the router does not
send RA's.
Furthe
Unless anyone can mention a lot of potential IPv6 deployments that will
deploy IPv6 without a router sending RA, it's not even worth discussing
the subject. Don't tell me one will deploy DHCPv6 hosts without a router
in the deployment - don't give me private closed networks for an example
- it's a
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> Thanks, James. I agree with Fred then that a node can try DHCPv6. But
> now how does the node get a prefix length? As you are saying, some
> manual or static configuration can be used. I certainly don't like the
> host to assume any prefix length in this scenario. S
Hi Jari,
As an FYI:
There is a need to indicate PMIP6 capability in the network via RA options.
This is being proposed in I-D: draft-damic-netlmm-pmip6-ind-discover-01.txt
-Raj
On 8/16/07 7:20 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have made my AD review of this document and f
You're not the first person to ask that question...
- Ralph
On Aug 17, 2007, at Aug 17, 2007,12:41 PM, James Woodyatt wrote:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:59 AM, "Templin, Fred L"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede
DHCPv6
transactions becaus
> What all information constitutes prefix information?
Why not just have DHCP return the same info as in an
RFC2461 PIO?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https:/
Prefix information includes prefixes other than those associated with
assigned addresses, or the case when the prefix associated with the
address is not on link.
Admittedly, the latter case is less than useful without a default
router. But default router information might come from elsewhe
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:59 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set the
host
will not initiate DHCPv6.
That doesn't make much sense; if a node doesn't
Ralph,
What all information constitutes prefix information? If a node is DHCPv6
enabled in a RA-absent network, why isn't just the prefix length enough
for the node to make an on-link determination with? In comparison, a
node that is DHCPv6 enabled in a RA-present network uses prefix length
and L
Thanks, James. I agree with Fred then that a node can try DHCPv6. But
now how does the node get a prefix length? As you are saying, some
manual or static configuration can be used. I certainly don't like the
host to assume any prefix length in this scenario. Since I am not a fan
of any manual confi
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> I have not found any information in the ND RFC's nor DHCPv6 RFC that say
> a node can initiate DHCPv6 if node doesn't receive any RA. I need to see
> explicit text in some document to accept what you said below.
It does say this. See RFC 2462 section 4:
The ne
> I have not found any information in the ND RFC's nor DHCPv6 RFC that
say
> a node can initiate DHCPv6 if node doesn't receive any RA. I need to
see
> explicit text in some document to accept what you said below.
Is there a MUST NOT somewhere that I am missing?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hemant
Fred,
I have not found any information in the ND RFC's nor DHCPv6 RFC that say
a node can initiate DHCPv6 if node doesn't receive any RA. I need to see
explicit text in some document to accept what you said below.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the revised charter is all right. AFAIAC, ship it.
Best Regards,
Tim Enos
Rom 8:28
>All,
> I have revised the charter for the proposed IPv6 maintenance WG
>based on comments received. Please review.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>
>
>
>--
> How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
> transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set the
host
> will not initiate DHCPv6.
That doesn't make much sense; if a node doesn't hear
RAs, why wouldn't it try DHCPv6 before giving up?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 17-aug-2007, at 1:38, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
The problem that I have is that if an address without a prefix length
becomes available, what do I do?
How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set t
25 matches
Mail list logo
