Tim: I'm not sure what you mean by your question ... SLAC (stateless auto-configuration) is independent of stateful. There may be some prefixes on a link that are stateful (0 or more) and others that are stateless (0 or more - excluding the link-local which is always stateless).
So, SLAC is independent of stateful (DHCPv6). - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: timothy enos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:00 PM > To: Bernie Volz (volz); 'Pekka Savola' > Cc: [email protected]; Ralph Droms (rdroms); 'IPv6 WG'; 'JINMEI > Tatuya / ????' > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last > Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt > > Bernie, > > Your points are well taken, and I agree. Making these flags 'hints' > makes sense. Also, it seems that if a client does not know what to do > (forgive the anthropomorphism) in response to having received > an RA with > the M (and O) bit(s) set (because it is not a DHCPv6 client), it would > just ignore it/them. > > Also wondering if there are any RFC 3315-capable clients that, after > failing to get config info from a DHCPv6 server 'x' times, > would revert > to SLAC? > > Tim Enos > 1Sam16:7 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Bernie Volz (volz) > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:20 PM > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: [email protected]; Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 WG; JINMEI > Tatuya / ???? > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last > Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt > > Hey, if they don't know what they're doing then set the bits > and be done > with it. If there's no DHCP server, the clients will try to get > configuration information and fail and continuously try in the > background. That's the safest fallback and the recommended default, > IMHO. > > If they do set them wrong, it won't take long for users to complain. > Just as they do now if the DHCP server or routing infrastructure is > down. > > Trying to design for stupidity only produces the same. > > - Bernie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:09 PM > > To: Bernie Volz (volz) > > Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ????; [email protected]; IPv6 WG; Ralph > > Droms (rdroms) > > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last > > Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt > > > > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > > > BTW, if you want to look at this from the router administrator's > > > perspective: > > > > > > Configure the router to send the M flag set in routing > > advertisements > > > for a Link IF: > > > 1. A stateful DHCP server is deployed for that link > (either on it or > > > reachable via a relay agent) AND > > > > IMHO, you're making a significant leap of faith in assuming that > > whoever configures the router's M-flag advertisements has > sufficient > > clue to grasp the different semantics that arise with: > > > > - M-flag and/or O-flag > > - stateless and stateful clients > > - stateless and stateful servers > > - stateless and stateful relay agents > > > > Hence, if we want to build a robust system, we need to > design it with > > care. > > > > > > > > -- > > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
