>>>>> On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:39:53 -0400,
>>>>> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes, your original analysis is correct...
> Seems like the protocol associated with the 'O' bit should be RFC 3736;
> there is no particular advantage to using the 4 message exchange of RFC 3315
> for "other configuration information". The only potential advantage would
> be if there is ever a need for "other configuration information" that needs
> atateful assignment; we've never found a need for such assignment in DHCPv4.
Okay.
> Although exactly where prefix delegation falls is a little unclear...
I think prefix delegation is a kind of "managed address configuration"
(corresponding to the M flag), rather than "other configuration
information". If a PD requesting router wants to get some "other"
configuration information like DNS recursive server addresses as well,
it can do that in the normal request/reply exchanges for prefix
delegation. Note that only getting the "other" information does not
make much sense in this case, because the delegated site will almost
not be able to do anything meaningful without a global prefix.
And, in any event, I believe we can separate the PD case from this
particular issue for rfc2462bis since PD is not expected to be invoked
via RA.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
