[dhcwg] Stateless DHCPv6 == "Other stateful configuration"?

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Thu, 01 May 2003 14:51 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15010 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:51:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h41EvJ316200 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:57:19 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h41EvJ816197 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:57:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14983 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19BFQX-0002GS-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 May 2003 10:52:49 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19BFQX-0002GK-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 May 2003 10:52:49 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h41Etu816049; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:55:56 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h41EfH812624 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:41:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13923 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:34:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19BFB7-00020p-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 01 May 2003 10:36:53 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19BFB1-00020R-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 01 May 2003 10:36:47 -0400
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h41EakWS018401; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:36:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-797.cisco.com [10.82.243.29]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA01118; Thu, 1 May 2003 10:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030501095907.00b99538@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:07:10 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <y7vptnpktc9.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030411113053.042c1cb0@funnel.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030411113053.042c1cb0@funnel.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [dhcwg] Stateless DHCPv6 == "Other stateful configuration"?
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

The following comment was posted to the dhcwg mailing list
during the WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt
Because the issue touches on RFC 2461 and RFC 2462, I've
cross-posted to both the ipv6 and dhc WG mailing lists.  Please
respond to the dhcwg@ietf.org mailing list - RD

At 12:10 AM 4/15/2003 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:

>4. interaction/consistency with RFC 246[12]
>
>How the stateless usage is related to the "Other stateful
>configuration" of router advertisements defined in RFC 2461 and 2462?
>Is the client (host) expected to start the stateless DHCPv6 when it
>receives a router advertisement with the "Other stateful
>configuration" flag being set?  If so, how can we interpret the
>"inconsistency" between the "stateless" DHCPv6 usage and the
>"stateful" router advertisement flag?  Perhaps this is just a matter
>of wording.  But, if RFC 2461 really intended a "stateful" protocol
>(i.e., where a server maintains lease state for the other
>configuration parameters), we may need to consider the gap as a
>fundamental architecture issue.

Well, I guess we first need to agree that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt
meets the expectation of "Other stateful configuration" in RFC 2461.
I intended draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt to be the
configuration protocol used when the "Other stateful configuration"
flag is set.  Is there any objection to explicitly specifying
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt for this use?

If there is no objection, we'll need to adjust the words
to make the connection explicit and avoid confusion...

- Ralph


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg