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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:31:15 +0100

Hi Jim,

Bound, Jim wrote:
> Mat,
> 
>> stateful/stateless is of no concern to the client, right? so if the
>> initiator is always the same, then the question of authority becomes
>> moot.
> 
> Let me restate I don't think you parsed my question, which
> may have been
> unclear in hingsight?

I think there has been some confusion wrt stateful/stateless address
allocation vs. stateful/stateless DHCPv6.

> For an IPv6 link the RA informs nodes whether they are permitted to
> use stateful, the default preference is stateless, meaning DO NOT USE
> DHCPv6 for anything, unless I set a bit that informs you that your
> permitted to use stateful on this link.

Yes, agreed. Going further, maybe A=0 could signal this?

> Do you disagree with that the IPv6 Link uses this model.

No I don't disagree, I think we are in violent agreement.

 -- Mat

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:21:30 -0700

> Yes, agreed. Going further, maybe A=0 could signal this?

But the A flag is per prefix, not per RA.
And so far we haven't assigned any semantics to a flag in the prefix 
being zero; the semantics are associated with the flags being set to one.
That model seems to be useful when extending the flags in the prefixes 
since it provide orthogonal flags. For instance, we added the 'R' flag 
and with that we can have Prefix option which set only the R flag (as 
well as the R flag in combination with one of A and L) and the addrconf 
and on-link pieces don't get confused by a prefix with R=1, A=0, L=0; 
those functions just ignore prefixes that have A=0 and L=0, respectively.

   Erik