>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:56:29 +0200, >>>>> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>> Requirement 1 simply says "DHCP is not available"; it doesn't say >>>> "do >>>> not try to find it". >>> I disagree. On some networks it's inappropriate to try to use DHCPv6. >> You can disagree about anything, but please remember that we are (or >> at least I'm) currently concentrating on listing points raised so far, >> without discussing whether each point is valid or not. And, in fact, >> there has actually been an opposite opinion to yours in the past >> discussion. > Hence the discussion. There have also been others who agree with me. > The trouble is, that you weakened the requirement by saying "it > doesn't say "do not try to find it"." Okay. However, not including the intent of "do not try to find it", while there is the *expectation* that the host won't send any DHCP messages, was actually my understanding of Ralph's original summaryn (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05141.html). If my interpretation was incorrect, I'm happy to be corrected. Even if others, I see some people (one person?) wants to include the stronger implication. So, I'd revise the requirement list as follows: 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 also wanted to indicate a stronger message of "do not try to find it" in requirement 1. 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). [Note: requirement 1'' can also have two variations: with or without the intent of "do not try to find it". But since the "some people" seem to be the same group, there is probably no version of 1'' without the intent] 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) [Note: this requirement contradicts requirement 1'. We'll need to determine which one should be honored or whether there is an intermediate compromise.] Is this better? 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
