Mat, > stateful/stateless is of no concern to the client, right? so if the > initiator is always the same, then the question of authority becomes > moot.
Let me restate I don't think you parsed my question, which may have been unclear in hingsight? For an IPv6 link the RA informs nodes whether they are permitted to use stateful, the default preference is stateless, meaning DO NOT USE DHCPv6 for anything, unless I set a bit that informs you that your permitted to use stateful on this link. This means the client after getting A bit set, and M/O bits not set, and prefix list it does not execute DHCPv6 client code at all. This is what I mean't by authority of RA to the client. Do you disagree with that the IPv6 Link uses this model. The way most implementations I am aware of work is as follows as hosts: If 'A' bit set with prefixes provided, set prefix list/lifetimes to on, and configure addresses from prefix with EUI. THEN check: If 'M' or 'O' bit set then call dhcpv6 client thread, or however engnineer wanted to implement this, ELSE dhcpv6 is not called. thanks /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
