Subject: Re: Re: IPv6 WG Call for Adoption:draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt

From: Syam Madanpalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:51:06 +0000 (GMT)

Hi Pekka

>
> There is of course one corner case here: if a node running host

> configuration behaviour would omit separate information configuration

> behavior, in case there was no "full DHCPv6" server in the network,

> the host would not get even the Information Configuration unless

> DHCPv6 falled back to sending an information-request in some manner

> (such as we discussed).

>
> Thus it seemed that in the current draft's specification, there were

> some (typically unnecessary) steps when both M and O flags are set and

> the policies set in a certain way, depending on how the DHCP specs are

> to be implemented to fall back when the server would only support

> information configuration.

> Does that clarify?

The approach that has been taken
in the draft is not to invoke the Information Configuraton

Behaviour, when Host Configuration
Behaviour is being invoked. This is true even both

M and O flags are set and
both the policies are either 1 and 2.

So the issue here is,
whether need to invoke the Information Configuration Behaviour

in case the Host Configuration
Behaviour fails irrespective of the O flag and its policy.

As you suggested, one could
implement fall back to ke the Information Configuration Behaviour

if e Host Configuration Behaviour
fails.

Syam

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