Bob, THere is no problem. The site owns the router configuration and the network admins are gods of rules. If the site sets the m bit the client is told go look for dhcpv6. if not set don't bother. If o set go look for configs. Pretty simple and I suspect people are looking for away to avoid clients obeying the mandate from the router and the site. We should not support that at all or work on it. The rules are clear.
thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bob Hinden > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:49 PM > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt > > Pekka, > > >Actually, the lack of M or O bits is not as good a hint as their > >existence. If we wanted a _good_ hint about non-existence > of DHCPv6 (for > >addresses or config information), we'd have to have > different flag(s) like > >"Yes, I'm aware of what DHCPv6 is, but we don't use it in this > >network". That allows disambiguation from "Yes, we do have > a couple of > >DHCPv6 servers, but we weren't aware you should configure > this stuff in > >the RAs, because with v4 you don't". > > This still seems to be to be fairly equivalent. I think the > important > function is if there is a DHCPv6 server and the site want the > clients to > use it, then they should set the "m" and "o" bits. I don't > see very much > value in conveying the negatives (e.g., we have a DHCPv6 > server, but we > don't want the clients to use it, we don't have a DHCPv6 > server so don't > try looking for one, we didn't set up a relay, etc., etc.). > > >But I'm not sure that disambiguation is worth the effort. > > Agreed. > > >That said, I support the clarification. In a sense I agree > with Thomas et > >al that the ra-mo-flags spec goes beyond the bare minimum > what the IETF > >specifications must specify -- it documents the policies and > behaviours > >which most vendors would implement in any case, but these > kind of knobs > >have often been left out of our specs. However, as there > has been so much > >confusion and discussion of M/O flags, I think this specification is > >useful, and also allows vendors (who want to) to implement > the knobs in a > >uniform manner. > > Part of me is starting to think that we might be better off > waiting for > there to be more operational experience with deployments of > DHCPv6 to see > how much confusion there really is. I agree it is good for > vendors to > implement similar knobs, but I wonder how much of a problem > there really is. > > Bob > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
