DNS discovery remains probably the "sticking" issue for need for DHCPv6 in otherwise atatelessly autoconfiguring networks.
I agree that the mechanism should be discussed and determined in the DNS WG (dnsext I presume). However, can anyone confirm if there is a slot in dnsext in San Francisco for this issue? There's no agenda on the IETF site. Tim On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:57:46PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Jim, > > I agree, I think it is a good compromise. > > > I like Brian's suggestion folks. > > /jim > > > > > "Bound, Jim" wrote: > > > > > > much deleted... > > > ... > > > > My issue is about stateless and stateful being required features > > > > within IPv6 for auto configuration. Both are needed and both are > > > > required. > > > > > > I hope we all agree on this, using lower case. I think we > > > have a genuine problem here in they way RFC 2119 defines > > > SHOULD - it makes it very strong indeed, maybe a bit too > > > strong for this case, whereas MAY is clearly too weak. Maybe > > > indeed we need to qualify the SHOULD, e.g. > > > > > > Stateful Address Autoconfiguration SHOULD be supported, unless all > > > possible use cases for the specific implementation concerned > > > are clearly satisfied by Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. > > > > > > Brian > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
