> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:46:46 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I also wanted to recall a conversation that taken place at the IPv6 interim
>> meeting about the usefulness of the 'O' bit ... however, if this
>> conversation is out-of-scope to the revision of RFC 2461, t
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:45:04 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I had intended only to make the suggestion that "stateful" be dropped from
> the phrase "other stateful configuration" (in RFC 2461) , because of the
> potential confusion between "other stateful configuration
Jinmei-san - I distracted the conversation a little with my posting ... I
think we have come to consensus as you describe in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg02280.html
and we can consider the question of "how clearly we should specify the
stateful address configurat
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:48:57 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other configuration
> information, as well.
> However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other*
> configurations" is a little misleading.
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:07 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one
> controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful
> address configuration protocol.
> The question actually consists of the
Ralph Droms wrote:
"Autonomous/managed" or "serverless/server-based" might be more
correct...
If asked to vote on one of these two proposals, I would select
"autonomous/managed"; a node that is "autonomous" in terms
of address configuration might be a "server" for some other
function unrealt
On 14-apr-04, at 14:35, Ralph Droms wrote:
I suggest dropping "stateful" from the description because of the
potential
for confusion inherent in providing a "stateful protocol for *other*
configurations" with "stateless DHCPv6" [RFC 3736].
This confusion arises from the unfortunate decision to d
On Apr 14, 2004, at 10:11 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Followup on the meaning of "stateless" - one way to interpret
"stateless" in
the context of DHCPv6 is: "does not require the maintenance of any
dynamic
state for individual clients" (RFC 3736). The server does, of course,
maintain configuration s
Hi Ralph,
> I suggest dropping "stateful" from the description because
> of the potential
> for confusion inherent in providing a "stateful protocol for *other*
> configurations" with "stateless DHCPv6" [RFC 3736].
=> I don't find the words "stateful" and "stateless" confusing
at all in thi
On Apr 14, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
If we want to drop bits, I would rather drop the 'M' bit, to reflect
the
consensus that autonomous allocation of addresses is the norm (MUST
implement) and that allocation through DHCP is an optional facility.
Actually, I never really understo
Followup on the meaning of "stateless" - one way to interpret "stateless" in
the context of DHCPv6 is: "does not require the maintenance of any dynamic
state for individual clients" (RFC 3736). The server does, of course,
maintain configuration state and can make decisions about the response sent
> In any event, perhaps the best way to simplify the protocol would be
to
> drop
> the "O" bit altogether. That is, make no attempt to control how a
host
> goes
> about finding the additional configuration information. There was a
brief
> discussion about this issue at an IPv6 WG interim meeting
On Apr 14, 2004, at 3:48 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Jinmei-san,
I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other
configuration
information, as well.
This is the logical extension.
However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other*
configurations" is a little misleading. I
I suggest dropping "stateful" from the description because of the potential
for confusion inherent in providing a "stateful protocol for *other*
configurations" with "stateless DHCPv6" [RFC 3736].
This confusion arises from the unfortunate decision to differentiate
RFC 2462 address assignment from
On 14-apr-04, at 12:48, Ralph Droms wrote:
I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other
configuration
information, as well.
However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other*
configurations" is a little misleading. I think the word "stateful"
could
be dropped.
And
Jinmei-san,
I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other configuration
information, as well.
However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other*
configurations" is a little misleading. I think the word "stateful" could
be dropped.
- Ralph
At 11:42 PM 4/13/2004 +0900,
I'm for (1) DHCPv6 and a reference to RFC 3315 (X).
- Bernie Volz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] what i
Hi all,
> >Question A: how should rfc2462bis specify the stateful protocol?
> >
> >possible answers:
> > 1. clearly say that stateful address configuration is DHCPv6
> > 2. (intentionally) do not say anything about this, and (implicitly
> > or explicitly) leave it to the node requirements do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-13, at 20.37, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 2004-04-13, at 15.53, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
>
>> Is there any other reason for not being clear on this (i.e., not
>> clearly say the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-13, at 15.53, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
> Is there any other reason for not being clear on this (i.e., not
> clearly say the stateful protocol is DHCPv6)? Or is this just a
> matter of preference?
I would prefer 2+Y. Simply to minimize
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
Question A: how should rfc2462bis specify the stateful protocol?
possible answers:
1. clearly say that stateful address configuration is DHCPv6
2. (intentionally) do not say anything about this, and (implicitly
or explicitly) leave it to the node requirements doc
I second 1+X.
AFAIC, from the beginning, this draft explicitly
considered DHCPv6 (though it was not RFC)
as a stateful mechanism.
"Stateful autoconfiguration is described in [DHCPv6]."
wrote in RFC1971, Aug. 1996.
- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, Samsung Electronics
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:07 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one
> controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful
> address configuration protocol.
(forgot to mention this) in this message
Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle
I second 1+X.AFAIC, from the beginning, this draft explicitly
considered DHCPv6 (though it was not RFC)as a stateful
mechanism."Stateful autoconfiguration is described in
[DHCPv6]."wrote in RFC1971, Aug. 1996.
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platfo
24 matches
Mail list logo
