>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:16:08 +1000,
>>>>> Brett Pentland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 1) Ability to indicate to a host "DHCP is not available on this link",
>> with the expectation that the host won't send any DHCP messages
>>
>> 1') Some people (one person?) also wanted the ability to indicate
>> to a host "a particular type of DHCPv6 (i.e., ICB or HCB) is not
>> available on this link" (This is probably a combination like
>> M=0&&O=1 would currently indicate)
>>
>> 2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available DHCP
>> configuration with a single DHCP message exchange
>> - if a host wants HCB, it sends an HCB request (Solicit) and receives
>> HCB and/or ICB replies
>> - if a host wants ICB, it sends an ICB request (Information-request)
>> and receives ICB replies
>>
>> 3) Ability to do DHCP without having to configure routers
>> (e.g., by ignoring RA with M=0 and/or O=0 and invoking HCB and/or
>> ICB anyway)
> Are 1) and 3) mutually exclusive, or is the requirement to have some
> M/O combination that says "There is no DHCP, do not try to find it"
> and another combination that says "I make so representation about the
> DHCP status so you're free to have a look for it"? Or have I completely
> missed the point?
Requirement 1 simply says "DHCP is not available"; it doesn't say "do
not try to find it". So I don't think 1 and 3 are mutually exclusive.
Note, however, that we've not fully discussed what these requirements
exactly mean, perhaps with RFC2119 keywords (MUST or SHOULD or ...).
I think that part is a subject of the next phase of this discussion,
where the result may make some combination mutually exclusive.
But it's not surprising even if some combinations are (or will be)
exclusive. As I said in the first message, I just tried to catch up
all requirements from various people we've seen so far, in order to
make sure that we don't miss anything at the start point. Succeeding
discussion in the second phase may reveal exclusive relationships.
(But, again, I don't want to go to that level of discussion at the
moment.)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
