Hi Adam,
Thanks for the text, unfortunately, I received this mail after
I sent out the update.
It seems that you are suggesting Stateful Address Config is
conditionally mandatory, and I think that I can agree with that.
John
> I was hoping for something a little more specific, helping to clear up just
> what an implementation needs in order to be conformant. How does something
> like the following sound?
>
> 4.4.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
>
> Stateful Address Autoconfiguration is conditionally mandatory. For those
> IPv6 Nodes that implement a stateful configuration mechanism such as
> [DHCPv6], those nodes SHOULD/MUST initiatiate stateful address
> autoconfiguration upon the reciept of a Router Advertisement with the
> Managed address flag set. In addition, as defined in [RFC2462], in the
> absence of a router, hosts that implement a stateful configuration
> mechanism such as [DHCPv6] MUST attempt to use stateful address
> autoconfiguration.
>
> For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement the optional stateful configuration
> mechanisms such as [DHCPv6], the Managed Address flag of a Router
> Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absensce of a router,
> this type of node is not required to initiate stateful address
> autoconfiguration as specified in [RFC2462].
>
>
> Adam Machalek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <john.loughney@no
>
>
> kia.com> To:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> cc:
>
> 06/28/2002 05:54 Subject: RE:
> Stateful Address Config - I-D
>
> AM
> ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> Very good point.� I have added the following text:
>
>
>
> 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
>
> IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC2462] defines stateless
> address autoconfiguation.� However, it does state that in
> the absence of
> routers, hosts must perform host MUST attempt to use stateful
> autoconfiguration. �There is also reference to stateful address
> autoconfiguration being defined elsewhere. Additionally, DHCP [DHCP]
> states that it is on option for stateful address autoconfiguation.
>
> From the current set of specification, it is not clear the level of
> support that is needed for statefull Address Autoconfiguration.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Adam Machalek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June, 2002 18:52
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Stateful Address Config - I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-00.txt
>
>
>
> John,
>
> Section 5.4 on DHCPv6 states that DHCPv6 is unconditionally optional,
> which today implicitly makes Stateful Address config optional.
>
> However, I'd like to see some direct clarification in this
> document on
> Stateful Address config, probably directly after Section
> 4.5.2 discussing
> Stateless Address config.
>
> RFC2462 has some ambiguities, in particular, it states "a
> managed address
> configuration flag indicates whether hosts should use stateful
> autoconfiguration", not SHOULD. � Later in 2462 in section 5.2 it
> continues this ambiguity by never explicitly using MAY/SHOULD/MUST
> anywhere.
>
> Still later in section RFC2462 5.5.2 Absence of Router
> Advertisements, it
> finally states that in the absence of a router, a host MUST
> attempt to use
> stateful autoconfiguration.
>
> And lastly, the DHCPv6 draft states "DHCP is one vehicle to perform
> stateful autoconfiguration", implying that there may be others.
>
> So in the end, even with DHCPv6 optional, this doesn't
> clarify exactly
> what a host should do about Stateful Address autoconfiguration.
>
> Adam Machalek
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
