>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:16:03 +1000,
>>>>> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This is a bit of a rant.
> Please accept my apologies. I'm quite concerned by
> the form of the document at the moment, although I
> think that the function needs to be available.
No need to apologize, I know the proposed concept described in the
draft is still immature and needs further detailed discussion. Any
positive or negative comments are appreciated.
> I think that the problems with the draft are not
> the policies themselves, but the distinction between
> "Stateless DHCPv6" and "Stateful IPv6"
> Where these are identified synonymously with 3315 (Stateful)
> and 3736 (Stateless).
[... snipped]
I now feel I get understanding the point...to make it sure, let me try
to rephrase that.
Assume we have a "stateful" DHCPv6 server (that implements RFC3315)
running. The server should support both
Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply(/and Renew) and
Information-request/Reply exchanges.
Then the administrator would send Router Advertisement with the M flag
being ON and the O flag being OFF. (The O flag is OFF since there is
no server that only supports RFC3736).
Now consider a host that only implements (the client side of) RFC3736,
configures global addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration
(assuming the RAs provide global prefixes for this), and wants to
configure recursive DNS server addresses using RFC3736. However,
since the O flag is OFF in advertised RAs, the host would not be able
to invoke the RFC3736 procedure and therefore cannot configure DNS
server addresses. This should be a suboptimal scenario.
Is this what you're mainly worrying about?
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
