This is important point Stig raises and could mean a lot to implementors of dhcpv6 clients how they implement the coexistence data structures as a note. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:31 AM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: Ralph Droms; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: M=1/O=0 is not valid in full 3315 ? > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:59:00AM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote: > > The key is the ongoing debate of stateless vs stateful and members > > working their agendas for their products. The bottom line is the > > users will use stateful and stateless and we need a way to > permit that > > and also inform implementors that both stateful and stateless are > > required for clients. That is the bottom line. How we say > it seems > > to be still a debate. > > /jim > > I agree with this. I have one concern though. > > There must be a way to support different types of clients. On > a link there may be both full fledged DHCP clients that needs > to receive > IPv6 addresses with DHCP, and some other DHCP clients that > can only do stateless (or need only stateless). In the latter > case the clients may have manually configured IPv6 addresses, > or use IPv4 or whatever. > > In that case, there must be a way to tell the full fledged > clients that they should use DHCP to configure addresses, > while at the same time allow some DHCP clients to use stateless. > > If you say all clients MUST do stateful or all clients MUST > do stateful... > > I believe there must be a way for an administrator to allow > the scenario I describe above. > > I'll try to stay away from this thread now, > > Stig > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
