On 5/13/11 1:56 PM, "ext james woodyatt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 13, 2011, at 11:34 , Cameron Byrne wrote: >> On May 13, 2011 11:28 AM, "james woodyatt" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Mobile hosts SHOULD implement DHCPv6 clients. >> > I wouldn't oppose elevating the requirement further still to say that >>mobile hosts MUST implement DHCPv6 clients. >> >> Why? Most mobile v6 nodes do not support it today. [...] > >I was thinking about RFC 3775, section 11.5.2, which says: > > As described in Section 4, in order to form a new care-of address, a > mobile node MAY use either stateless [13] or stateful (e.g., DHCPv6 > [29]) Address Autoconfiguration. How a MIP6 (or DSMIP6) MN configures the IPv6 CoA has no bearing on the present discussion. I do agree with Cameron that a MUST for mobile devices is a bad idea. -Raj > > >-- >james woodyatt <[email protected]> >member of technical staff, core os networking > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >[email protected] >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
