>>>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:28:11 +0100,
>>>>> Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My point in this message is that IMO we should specify the protocols
>> corresponding to these flags clearly and concretely, without leaving
>> any ambiguity (I've changed the subject accordingly.) That is, I
>> strongly believe we should clearly say in rfc2462bis, *for example*,
>>
>> - the protocol that should be invoked by the M flag is DHCPv6
>> (RFC3315), and nothing else
>> - the protocol that should be invoked by the O flag is stateless
>> DHCPv6 (RFC3736), and nothing else
> But in reality nodes will have full DHCPv6 client support in them (3315)
> whether or not they then see the M or O flag that is what they will use?
> All the DHCPv6 servers implemented to date, to my knowledge, are 3315 and
> not the 3736 subset.
> So it is better to just say O flag is other (non address) configuration
> data, regardless of full/subset of DHCPv6 used?
Aghhh....you have jumped to the next stage. I didn't intend to
propose any particular protocols for the M/O flags in the above
message. I first wanted to make it clear that we should clearly
specify particular protocols for the M/O flags, whatever they are.
That's why I emphasized the phrase "for example" by the set of
asterisks.
(In fact, I planned to add another note e.g., "even if we can agree on
this approach, which protocol should be used for each flag is a
separate question". I thought this was clear by the emphasized "for
example", but apparently I was naive...)
Since discussions in this thread has tend to diverge, please make it
step-by-step.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s. since you've already made a further step anyway, I'd clarify one
thing at the moment:
> All the DHCPv6 servers implemented to date, to my knowledge, are 3315 and
> not the 3736 subset.
This is not correct. The DHCPv6 server provided by the KAME project
conforms to RFC3736, but does not fully conform to RFC3315. More
importantly, there should be few implementations that conform to
RFC3315 including the ability of configuring IPv6 addresses by DHCPv6.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
