Subject: RE: M/O flags: hints vs more [Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)]

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:47:53 -0400

in the enterprise "initially" they will run dhcpv6 because stateless for wireline will not be used is my opinion.  reason is control.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:12 AM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: M/O flags: hints vs more [Re: the protocols for the 
> M/O flags (Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags)]
> 
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 
> $B?@L@C#:H(B wrote:
> > - details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.g.
> >   whether we should mandate to invoke the protocol or we can just
> >   regard the flag as a hint and let the host decide if it 
> invokes the
> >   protocol (as Christian suggested), etc.
> 
> I support Christian's suggestion; they should be just hints.  
> 
> No flag is going to force the node to run a protocol.  More 
> often than not, for implementation simplicity, I'd guess most 
> nodes (especially where DHCPv6 is available), the nodes are 
> going to run DHCPv6(-lite) in any case, whether they saw a 
> flag or not.
> 
> On the other hand, absence of a flag is not going to prevent 
> a node from running a protocol.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
LR��(�H��
躙��X��X��*o�'�~��٢�+-��b��^�笶�m��?�0�'�~���f��f��X��)ߣ���