>>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:25:00 +0530,
>>>>> Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I disagree with the interpretation of M=0.
>>
>> M has no impact on stateless autoconf. The existence
>> of prefixes in the RA marked as "autoconf from this
>> prefix" controls stateless autoconf. If M=0 and no
>> prefixes are advertised as autoconf-able, the host
>> has no assertion that DHCP is available and no prefixes
>> to autoconf addresses from.
>>
>> If M=1 and autoconf prefixes are available, the host
>> does both DHCP and stateless autoconf.
I completely agree with Ralph.
> Why is that any host needs to get two addresses?
> Is there any scenario where this is useful?
I don't think this is the right question. The question should be,
IMO, "why should we prohibit the simultaneous use of stateful and
stateless?"
And I don't see any reason to prohibit that, though there may be no
useful scenario at least for now.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
