On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 07:51 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
Also, I am not sure I understand what the problem is regarding knowing when
to try using DHCPv6. For practical purposes, if there isn't a router
present
(indicated by the RAs it sends) is
(Cleaning the Cc list a bit)
On Wed, 18 May 2005 12:29:20 -0400,
Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There are really only two behaviors a client should be doing. If a
client doesn't implement DHC, well, then it obviously shouldn't/can't
invoke DHC. End of story. If it does implement
On 5/18/05, Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me just start off by saying I pretty much agree completely with
what Bernie just said.
Even I do agrre, what Bernie said. I understodd from his mail, a node can
fall back to Information Configuration Behavior (DHCPv6 Lite) if ti fails do
The discussion of M/O bits caused me to think about the meaning and
specification of host behavior for M/O bits and for SLAAC. In
particular, I'm trying to understand the degree of control over host
behavior specified in both cases.
I'll focus here on what I can understand about SLAAC, because
Excellent points Thomas.
5. what if the M flag is set but the host does not get any DHCPv6
Advertise in the initial exchange? Is it okay to fall
back to the
RFC3736 subset? Or is it even okay to run both full RFC3315 and
the RFC3736 subset concurrently from the beginning?
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:47:25 -0400,
Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That is, vendors always implement additional knobs/whistles as they
see fit. The IETF doesn't need to account for all of those.
What we our specs do need to support is not disallowing behavior that
it might make
Thomas,
If the original 2461 text is really deemed insufficient, how about
something like:
o 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
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:56:26 -0400,
Bernie Volz (volz) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I haven't followed this thread carefully, but are you trying to suggest
that if the M flag is set but O is not, that a client would IGNORE the
other configuration parameters received from a DHCP server in a
Savola
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 WG; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
Tim:
I'm not sure what you mean by your question ... SLAC (stateless
auto-configuration) is independent of stateful. There may be some
I haven't followed this thread carefully, but are you trying to suggest
that if the M flag is set but O is not, that a client would IGNORE the
other configuration parameters received from a DHCP server in a
Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply sequence? That seems very bad to me. And
a waste of
] Re: IPv6 WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
I haven't followed this thread carefully, but are you trying
to suggest
that if the M flag is set but O is not, that a client would IGNORE the
other configuration parameters received from a DHCP server in a
Solicit/Advertise/Request
Exactly!
-Original Message-
From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:21 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; Pekka Savola; dhcwg@ietf.org; IPv6
WG; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; dhcwg@ietf.org; IPv6 WG; Ralph
Droms (rdroms)
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
BTW, if you want to look at this from the router administrator's
(volz)
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:20 PM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 WG; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
Hey, if they don't know what they're doing then set the bits and be done
with it. If there's
14 matches
Mail list logo
