RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt

Hey, if they don't know what they're doing then set the bits and be done
with it. If there's no DHCP server, the clients will try to get
configuration information and fail and continuously try in the
background. That's the safest fallback and the recommended default,
IMHO.

If they do set them wrong, it won't take long for users to complain.
Just as they do now if the DHCP server or routing infrastructure is
down.

Trying to design for stupidity only produces the same.

- Bernie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:09 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ????; dhcwg@ietf.org; IPv6 WG; Ralph 
> Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last 
> Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
> 
> On Mon, 16 May 2005, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > BTW, if you want to look at this from the router administrator's
> > perspective:
> >
> > Configure the router to send the M flag set in routing 
> advertisements
> > for a Link IF:
> > 1. A stateful DHCP server is deployed for that link (either on it or
> > reachable via a relay agent) AND
> 
> IMHO, you're making a significant leap of faith in assuming that 
> whoever configures the router's M-flag advertisements has sufficient 
> clue to grasp the different semantics that arise with:
> 
>   - M-flag and/or O-flag
>   - stateless and stateful clients
>   - stateless and stateful servers
>   - stateless and stateful relay agents
> 
> Hence, if we want to build a robust system, we need to design it with 
> care.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 

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