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
> 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
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 begin
JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One possible case would be a server host which manually configures
> itself with an IPv6 address, but seeks to get default router addresses
> via an RA and possibly other configuration information such as
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 we
Comments in line...
- Ralph
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 16:19 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
> (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
> > c
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
Fu
(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
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
Let me just start off by saying I pretty much agree completely with
what Bernie just said.
I've also reviewed this document, and I am really wondering what this
document is trying to achieve. It seems to me that its added a lot of
text (that IMO is not really needed). In particular, I don't think
> 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 s
2005 3:41 PM
To: timothy enos; 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
Tim:
I'm not sure what you mean by your question ... SLAC (stateless
auto-configuration) is indepen
half Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: timothy enos; Pekka Savola
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya / ; IPv6 WG; Ralph
> Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last
> Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
>
> Tim:
>
> I&#x
lain.
> Just as they do now if the DHCP server or routing infrastructure is
> down.
>
> Trying to design for stupidity only produces the same.
>
> - Bernie
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, May
ehalf Of
Bernie Volz (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 a
t; Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:09 PM
> 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) wrot
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
BTW, if you want to look at this from the router administrator's
perspective:
Configure the router to send the M flag set in routing advertisements
for a Link IF:
1. A stateful DHCP server is deployed for that link (either on it or
reachable via a rela
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 La
Another reason they need to be only hints to the clients, is that there
might be many different types of clients on the same link. I think there
are many cases where you don't want to force all the clients to do the
same. One thing is what information a client wants to obtain, another is
what it su
; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] 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 confi
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 resource
21 matches
Mail list logo
