Hi Tim,
> There is a minor discrepancy in text between 2461 and 2462 that could
> perhaps be clarified in the -bis work for those texts. This is regarding
> the M flag referring to addresses and other options, or just addresses.
> Three parts of the texts have different nuances:
>
> a) 2461 se
Hi Ralph,
Thanks for the text, I agree & will add it.
thanks,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 December, 2003 22:52
> To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pekka Savola
>
Hi Tim, hi Ralph,
I also completely agree with Ralphs wording. Tim: regarding the issue
you address:
> So the question is should the wording of (a) and (b) be changed to reflect
> the processing text of (c)? On their own, (a) and (b) suggest that to get
> the behaviour of (c) *both* the M and O
Ralph,
This simplification and use of language looks good.
As an aside:
There is a minor discrepancy in text between 2461 and 2462 that could
perhaps be clarified in the -bis work for those texts. This is regarding
the M flag referring to addresses and other options, or just addresses.
Three
im
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 6:45 AM
> To: Pekka Savola; Ralph Droms
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)
>
>
> Pekka,
>
> Have you read both
; To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)
>
>
> Tim & Pekka,
>
> I got t
Catching up with things.
I support Christian objection 100%.
Protocols may be implemented in the stack but turned on/off by
configuration.
- Alain.
Christian Huitema wrote:
Also, I think we should revisit this text in the RFC2462bis
effort. Changing the MUST to MAY in the 5.5.2 paragraph l
Here are some comments and suggested text for
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt:
It would be good to use either DHCP or DHCPv6 (but not both) consistently
throughout the doc.
5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
The first two paragraphs are sort of redundant relative to the second
parag
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
> No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of the various message
> exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315.
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the implementation of
> DHCP that provides other configuration info
No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of the various message
exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315.
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the implementation of
DHCP that provides other configuration information but not address assignment.
It might cl
I'm just catching up on this thread ... I was off-line (sleeping) and found
it in my inbox this AM.
I'll follow up in a couple of hours, after I catch up on a couple of
pressing day job issues.
There is another issue with RFC 2462 that will fall somewhere among
clarification/update/revision of the
Hi Tim,
> I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here.
>
> Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for this
> document we can either
>
> a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so that
>is not ideal
>
> b) use language that emphasises
the
> other document.)
>
> We agreed that perhaps discussion of Statless DHCP need not be mentioned.
>
> John
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ext
> > Tim Chown
> > Sent: 04 December, 200
John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ext
> Tim Chown
> Sent: 04 December, 2003 13:54
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IES
Hi Tim,
> Remove site-local as we're deprecating them?
I agree. It was an oversite.
> >An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag
> >set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure interfaces
> >with both stateless autoconfiguration addresses and ad
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:13:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
>
>An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be
>unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
>when it is connected to a link over
Hi Pekka,
> >For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes
> should use DHCP
>
> Why do you keep using constructs like this? Why not just:
>
> IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP should use DHCP [...]
Matter of taste. If really bothers you, I can adjust the text.
> >For tho
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It
> > is not clear to which you're referring
Pekka,
> Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It
> is not clear to which you're referring to here.
There is no discussion of stateless DHCP, the section heading is:
5.3 Dynamic Host Configurat
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in
> RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It
> is not clear to which you're referring to here.
Does that matter to the client?
Tim
Pekka,
> > > Use DHCP for what? both address config (if available) as well?
> >
> > The text says:
> >
> > ... to obtain other configuration.
>
> Yes, in the first sentence. No, in the second.
It can be added to the 2nd sentence.
John
--
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP
Why do you keep using constructs like this? Why not just:
IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP should use DHCP [...]
(the same in the text later.)
>For those IPv6 Nodes (ac
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those
> > >nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with
> > >the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) to obtain other
> > >configuration. In
Hi Thomas,
The 2nd paragraph of the current node requirements draft says
For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those
nodes MUST use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with
the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the
absence
> Also, I think we should revisit this text in the RFC2462bis
> effort. Changing the MUST to MAY in the 5.5.2 paragraph looks like
the
> right change to me, but that's a different email thread.
I would agree with that. In any case, I object to tying a MUST condition
to the availability of the co
Thomas,
At 10:27 AM 11/21/2003, Thomas Narten wrote:
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John,
> >For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
> >upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
> >section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In additi
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John,
> >For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
> >upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
> >section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
> >IPv6 Nodes that
Just invading this thread for short comment...
> IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, MUST use DHCP upon
> the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see
> section 5.5.3 of RFC2462).
Why would there be a "MUST"? The O/M bits are just hints what the node
could do a
Looks like we've got dueling revisions...
I agree with both your points: this Requirements doc ought to
use the same requirements words as the original RFC (I used
MUST just editing the original proposed text); and if the node
does not receive any RAs, it ought to use DHCPv6 to obtain
both address
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:03:10AM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, MUST use DHCP upon
>the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see
>section 5.5.3 of RFC2462).
Section 5.5.3 of RFC2462 states "should", not "MUST". Y
14:50:19 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)
> to:
>
>Nodes that implement DHCP MUST use DHCP upon the receipt of a
>Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag se
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If no Router Advertisements are recieved within (NN seconds?) of
> joining a link and sending a Router Solicitation, IPv6 hosts that
> implement DHCPv6 should attempt to use DHCPv6 to obtain both
> IPv6 address(es) and other configuration information.
(inline)
At 10:24 AM 11/21/2003 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralph,
Expanding your text, would this be acceptable:
IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, MUST use DHCP to obtain other
configuration
information (not including address(es) upon the receipt of a Router
Advertisement with th
Bob,
> >For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
> >upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
> >section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
> >IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP.
>
62).
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November, 2003 16:40
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)
>
>
> P
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:50:19PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Upon receipt of a router advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
> section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462), IPv6 hosts that implement DHCPv6 MUST attempt
> to use DHCPv6 to obtain both IPv6 addess(es) and other configuration
> information
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:50:29AM -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> Please remind me why the "in the absence of a router" text is there. I am
> having a hard time thinking about a scenario where there would be a DHCP
> server, but no router. The presences of a DHCP relay agent would also need
> a
I havn't followed this discussion closely, but in my opinion
we have no business legislating anything stronger than a
MAY in relation to handling the M & O bits in received
Router Advertisements. Sorry if this goes against other
opinions, but that's the way I see it.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL P
> => In 6.2.7 :
>
>Routers SHOULD inspect valid Router Advertisements sent by other
>routers and verify that the routers are advertising consistent
>information on a link. Detected inconsistencies indicate
> that one or
>more routers might be misconfigured and SHOULD be logged
John,
For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP.
to:
Nodes tha
> to:
>
>Nodes that implement DHCP MUST use DHCP upon the receipt of a
>Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of
>RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
>IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. In this
>context, 'use DH
Pekka - The specific text is ambiguous ... however, in John's
message of 11/20, there is a sentence later in the same paragraph:
In this context, 'use DHCP' means trying to obtain only other
configuration information through DHCP, not address(es).
That sentence clarifies the text I quoted.
-
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:27:27AM -0500, Soliman Hesham wrote:
>
> => In 6.2.7 :
>
>Routers SHOULD inspect valid Router Advertisements sent by other
>routers and verify that the routers are advertising consistent
>information on a link. Detected inconsistencies indicate that one or
Hesham,
At 09:27 AM 11/20/2003 -0500, Soliman Hesham wrote:
> I strongly suggest the use of "Nodes" (unqualified) in the text
> about the 'O' bit:
=> To be clear, I was suggesting substitusting "Nodes (acting as hosts)".
I'm not sure if you're replying to my comment or in general.
Thanks for t
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
> I strongly suggest the use of "Nodes" (unqualified) in the text
> about the 'O' bit:
>
> IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, MUST use DHCP upon
> the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see
> section 5.5.3 of RFC2462).
>
> The
> I strongly suggest the use of "Nodes" (unqualified) in the text
> about the 'O' bit:
=> To be clear, I was suggesting substitusting "Nodes (acting as hosts)".
I'm not sure if you're replying to my comment or in general.
> However, there is some question about any discussion of "nodes" and
I strongly suggest the use of "Nodes" (unqualified) in the text
about the 'O' bit:
IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, MUST use DHCP upon
the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462).
There is no reason a router can't use DHCPv6 for other configura
>
> Is there a reason to differentiate between nodes acting as
> hosts here, but
> not in the paragraph describing the behavior in response to
> the 'M' bit?
=> In general, unless previously discussed and rejected for some
reason, I'd globally: s/Nodes (acting as hosts)/host
It's a bit c
Comments (mostly editorial) in line...
- Ralph
At 11:12 AM 11/20/2003 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Please ignore previous mails on this topic, here is the proposed text:
thanks,
John
> > In addition, in the absence of a router,
> >IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to
> Please ignore previous mails on this topic, here is the proposed text:
the change has to be synchronized with 2462bis effort, am i right?
itojun
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative R
Hi All,
I forgot other text that Pekka suggested, here is all of the text:
reword:
For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a route
53 matches
Mail list logo
