Subject: RE: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:48:10 -0400

Also, the servers aren't impacted by the M/O bits. They don't use them.

Though changing the DHCPv6 protocol as we've contemplated, would impact
the servers and the clients.

But if you're currently deploying with either the M set or the O set,
there is no problem. Sure, if a client talks to a new server it might
get other configuration parameters in an Advertise, but I doubt that
would cause it to fail (it would likely just ignore the parameters).

The only situation where these changes would impact clients is if a new
client communicates with an old server. Since the old server won't send
other configuration parameters. So, yes the servers would need to be
upgraded in order to use newer clients.

- Bernie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:40 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); [email-masked]; Iljitsch van Beijnum; 
> [email-masked]; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit
> 
> On May 27, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > ughh. sorry know of three production servers in use Lucent, HP, and
> > Linux version.
> >
> 
> That's not what I mean.   The point is that it's early days, and  
> updating servers isn't a hard problem.   My point is that I don't  
> know of any widespread deployments we'd be breaking right now, not  
> that there are no implementations.
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Syam Madanapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 23:11:24 +0530

Isn't it such a long idscussion a proof for the confusion in
understanding the M/O
bits? Instead of leaving the discussion here, thinking that there is
no confusion or
be fore taking any radical changes (either discarding M or O or both flags, or 
making changes to the DHCPv6 protocols), it is better to document the inteded 
use of M/O flags as an informational document, so that we will have uniform 
implementations in th future. I am sure this (intended use of M/O
flags) is very
obvious for some people here, but definitely help many others. Also
this information
will be handy for the implementer.

- Syam

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:24:31 -0400

But the discussion says nothing about how complex the underlying issues
are.  I think there is significant room for simplification (but no more
simplification than necessary!), especially if we set aside
preconceptions about the M/O bits and look at what we've learned through
discussion, implementation and deployment planning.

- Ralph