I, of course, meant stateful below, not stateless. I shouldn't send mail
before the caffeine has kicked in.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 March, 2003 18:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: some opinion about the requirement level of
> DHCPv6 (for nodereq)
>
>
> Hi Jinmei,
>
> In the text, I've tried to seperate the requirements for
> Stateless Address Autoconfig
> from the use of DHCP for other config info.
>
> My opinion is that Stateless Address Autoconfig support is
> MAY. If a node would need
> Stateless Address Autoconfig, then DHCPv6 support is a MUST
> for Stateless Address
> Autoconfig.
>
> If a node needs other config info, then DHCPv6 is a SHOULD,
> which is independent
> of Stateless Address Autoconfig.
>
> John
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 19 March, 2003 21:20
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: some opinion about the requirement level of
> > DHCPv6 (for nodereq)
> >
> >
> > (oops, sorry, the message was incomplete)
> >
> > >>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:31:22 +0900,
> > >>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > As for other configuration (e.g. DHCPv6) by DHCPv6:
> > > I would vote for SHOULD, with one condition that
> >
> > ... that the other configuration specification is clearly separated
> > from full support of DHCPv6 (to mitigate the load of
> implementing the
> > full spec). draft-droms-dhcpv6-stateless-guide may help to explore
> > this separation.
> >
> > JINMEI, Tatuya
> > Communication Platform Lab.
> > Corporate R&D Center,
> > Toshiba Corp.
> > [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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
