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

Tim:

I'm not sure what you mean by your question ... SLAC (stateless
auto-configuration) is independent of stateful. There may be some
prefixes on a link that are stateful (0 or more) and others that are
stateless (0 or more - excluding the link-local which is always
stateless).

So, SLAC is independent of stateful (DHCPv6).

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: timothy enos [mailto:timbeck04@verizon.net] 
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:00 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz); 'Pekka Savola'
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); 'IPv6 WG'; 'JINMEI 
> Tatuya / ????'
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: IPv6 WG Last 
> Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
> 
> Bernie,
> 	
> Your points are well taken, and I agree. Making these flags 'hints'
> makes sense. Also, it seems that if a client does not know what to do
> (forgive the anthropomorphism) in response to having received 
> an RA with
> the M (and O) bit(s) set (because it is not a DHCPv6 client), it would
> just ignore it/them. 
> 
> Also wondering if there are any RFC 3315-capable clients that, after
> failing to get config info from a DHCPv6 server 'x' times, 
> would revert
> to SLAC?
> 
> Tim Enos
> 1Sam16:7
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of
> Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:20 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 WG; JINMEI 
> Tatuya / ????
> Subject: 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
> > 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

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