3315 supports both m and o. just a fact. that I know. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya / ???? > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: > [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags) > > >>>>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:50:26 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Hmm, despite the notice, people have started and explored > the specific > > discussion on which protocols should be specified for the M/O flags > > and how we describe it... > > > Please recall such a discussion will become meaningless (in > the scope > > of rfc2462bis) unless we can agree on specifying particular > protocols > > for these flags. So let's first make a consensus on this. > > > I guess it's okay for most of those who joined the specific > discussion > > to specify particular protocols. In fact, they seem to > have assumed > > the agreement. > > > Can we think this shows a consensus here? If someone strongly > > disagrees with this idea, please speak up right now. > > It might be too early to conclude, but I interpret the > silence as an agreement at the moment. > > So, what we've agreed on so far are: > > - we'll keep the M and O flags > - we should clearly specify the protocols corresponding to the flags > (without leaving ambiguity) > - the protocol for the M flag is DHCPv6 (we've already reached a > consensus on this, but I mention it explicitly because we've had > some fundamental discussions) > > And what we should discuss from now on are: > > - which protocol should be used for the O flag > - details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.g. > whether we should mandate to invoke the protocol or we can just > regard the flag as a hint and let the host decide if it invokes the > protocol (as Christian suggested), etc. > > I'll be off from the list for a vacation until May 7th. > Hopefully the discussion will continue in a productive manner > during the period but will not diverge very much:-) > > Thanks, > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1H>þ°¢¹"ž+¢êfj)bž b²Ø¿¨žµú+€fŠx¬¶¶Š÷‘z«ž²Û!¶Úlÿü0ÃXžµú+ƒùšŠYšŸùb²Ø~â¦þ
