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 following two
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
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 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
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 (Aug
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
to
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 this context. I
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 state
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
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 unrealted to
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 Platform
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, I
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.
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-13, at 15.53, JINMEI Tatuya / 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
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 document
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
