Hi Fred, On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:51:14 -0700 "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Thomas, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Thomas Narten > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:11 PM > > To: Brzozowski, John > > Cc: [email protected]; Bob Hinden > > Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD > > > > > Is the intention for the new text to relax the requirement for > > > auto-configuration? > > > > No. SLAAC remains a MUST. DHCPv6 though is now a SHOULD. > > > > For one thing, DHCP doesn't have an option configure on-link prefixes, > > so we still need SLAAC. > > Not all links will necessarily require on-link prefixes. For > those, DHCPv6 alone may be sufficient. > Out of curiosity, wouldn't link locals be classified as SLAAC addresses (as in, their configuration is stateless and they're autoconfigured by default)? I understand you're saying that there are scenarios where RA's wouldn't contain a PIO, or perhaps the PIO wouldn't have then on-link flag set, however I'm curious if saying that SLAAC isn't necessary in that scenario is also implying that link-locals may not be necessary either? Thanks, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
