IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and related protocols

Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com> Thu, 20 May 2004 19:06 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12668 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 15:06:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQspe-0006vl-Rw for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 15:03:55 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KJ3sEQ026641 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 15:03:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQser-0008NI-Bc for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:52:45 -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 OAA11436 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQseo-0002Zl-Co for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:52:42 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQse5-0002WB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:51:58 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsdc-0002Rn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:51:28 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQsUe-0005lG-II; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:42:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQsLb-0001FL-JU for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:32:51 -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 OAA09970 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQsLY-0000g0-UV for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:32:49 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsKZ-0000aP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:31:47 -0400
Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsJa-0000Pz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:30:46 -0400
Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4KIS9oK010913; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blixten (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id i4KIS7Q23928; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:28:07 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:31:48 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Reply-To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and related protocols
To: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>, ipv6@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B0644BFAE@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1085074308.32513.nordmark@bebop.france>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

> Just checking.  We do need the M bit for those wanting to use stateful?  Or
> do you not agree?

I agree with the Jinmei's definition that the M bit indicates to the host
that DHCPv6 for IP address configuration is available on the link.

With that definition it is possible to build hosts that initialize
efficiently, by only trying to use DHCPv6 when the router advertisements
say that it is available.

   Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email