Re: M/O flags: hints vs more [Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)]

2004-04-29 Thread Alain Durand
On Apr 29, 2004, at 10:29 AM, Tim Chown wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:12:02PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: - details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.

Re: M/O flags: hints vs more [Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)]

2004-04-29 Thread Tim Chown
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:12:02PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > > - details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.g. > > whether we should mandate to invoke the protocol or we can just > > rega

Re: M/O flags: hints vs more [Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)]

2004-04-29 Thread Christian Strauf (JOIN)
> I support Christian's suggestion; they should be just hints. I also support this suggestion. > No flag is going to force the node to run a protocol. More often than > not, for implementation simplicity, I'd guess most nodes (especially > where DHCPv6 is available), the nodes are going to run

RE: M/O flags: hints vs more [Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)]

2004-04-29 Thread Bound, Jim
in the enterprise "initially" they will run dhcpv6 because stateless for wireline will not be used is my opinion. reason is control. /jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Pekka Savola > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:12 AM > To: