On 04/01/2012 12:46 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 21:43 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> Or you could use one's statically assigned address.
>>
>> Oh, yeah. And you could have opted to not send the RS in the first
>> place... and what? :-)
>
> Um, I'm not sure why we're arguing. I'l
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 21:43 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > Or you could use one's statically assigned address.
>
> Oh, yeah. And you could have opted to not send the RS in the first
> place... and what? :-)
Um, I'm not sure why we're arguing. I'll still see unsolicited RAs at
regular intervals,
On 03/31/2012 03:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 14:10 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> Anyway, I've been working on the basis that the M and O flags are
>>> advisory and not prescriptive. That is, they do not *require* the
>>> host to do anything.
>>
>> Exactly: They do not REQUIRE
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 14:10 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > Anyway, I've been working on the basis that the M and O flags are
> > advisory and not prescriptive. That is, they do not *require* the
> > host to do anything.
>
> Exactly: They do not REQUIRE you to do DHCPv6. You MAY want not to do
>
Hi, Karl,
On 03/31/2012 12:57 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
> In a discussion titled "Stable privacy addresses (upcoming rev)",
> Fernando Gont said:
>> They could [...] have RAs require you to do DHCPv6 and then have
>> DHCPv6 assign you a constant address, etc.
>
> What interests me here is the phrase "
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 23:03 +1100, Hesham Soliman wrote:
> >There was a bunch of stuff about the M and O flags in RFC2462, almost
> >all of which was removed in RFC4862. In RFC2462, the word
> >"should" (*not* capitalised) was used, along with phrases like "is to
> >be".
>
> => "should" does not n
Just a quick comment below
>There was a bunch of stuff about the M and O flags in RFC2462, almost
>all of which was removed in RFC4862. In RFC2462, the word
>"should" (*not* capitalised) was used, along with phrases like "is to
>be".
=> "should" does not need to be capitalised to indicate that it
In a discussion titled "Stable privacy addresses (upcoming rev)",
Fernando Gont said:
> They could [...] have RAs require you to do DHCPv6 and then have
> DHCPv6 assign you a constant address, etc.
What interests me here is the phrase "have RAs require you to do DHCPv6".
When, if ever, are hosts
