Hi, thanks for the prompt response.
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:49:54 +0000 (GMT),
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I hope that there has been some clarifcation.
Yes, it helped, but I'm still not sure if I understand the entire
point...
> I was concerned that M|O could be used to
> invoke DHCP information-requests
> (rather than just O).
Are you saying that if the host receives an RA with the both M and O
flags being set it could invoke both RFC3315 and RFC3736 with the
proposed policy (or even could invoke RFC3736 only)? This is not
correct: the draft says in section 5.0 that
Case: M=ON and O=ON
Scenario 7: If M-Policy is 1 or 2
The host invokes Stateful DHCPv6 and does not invoke Stateless
DHCPv6 regardless of O-Policy.
In general, the proposed approach separately defines two policy
variables (M and O) corresponding to the RA's M and O flags,
respectively, but it also considers inter-relationship between the two
policies / two flag values like this case.
Does this basic approach address your concern, or are you worrying
about this approach itself?
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
