Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> Tue, 21 March 2006 19:37 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLmfF-0004na-9O; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:37:09 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLmfD-0004iY-CS for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:37:07 -0500
Received: from mgw-ext03.nokia.com ([131.228.20.95]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLmfC-0005ML-UU for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:37:07 -0500
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext03.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k2LJZax6028025 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:35:42 +0200
Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.28]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:36:19 +0200
Received: from [130.129.134.243] ([10.241.59.226]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:36:18 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8F360CDF-9A6B-4BC0-91CF-2FC98C62356A@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
To: IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2006 19:36:18.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9947630:01C64D1E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d
Subject: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, At the Vancouver meeting we discussed clarifying the use of the M&O bits in Neighbor Discovery Router Advertisements. I made a proposal to drop <draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt> and instead to just change the text describing the M&O bits in <draft-ietf- ipv6-2461bis-06.txt> along the lines as Thomas Narten suggested on the IPv6 list. The current M&O text from Section 4.2 "Router Advertisement Message Format" <draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-06.txt> is a follows: M 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it indicates that Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6] is available for address configuration in addition to any addresses autoconfigured using stateless address autoconfiguration. O 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When set, it indicates that [DHCPv6lite] is available for autoconfiguration of other (non-address) information. Examples of such information are DNS- related information or information on other servers within the network. The proposal is to replace this text with the following text. Note, this is same as what was proposed at the meeting with the addition of the note at the end as was suggested at the meeting. M : 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it indicates that addresses are available via Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6], including addresses that were not configured via stateless address autoconfiguration. Clients SHOULD use DHC to obtain addresses (and associated configuration information) as described in [ADDRCONF]. Note that when the M bit is set, the setting of the O bit is irrelevant, since the DHC server will return "other" configuration information together with addresses. O : 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When set, it indicates that [DHCPv6lite] is available for autoconfiguration of other (non- address) information. Examples of such information are DNS-related information or information on other servers within the network. When set, - If the M bit is also set, clients SHOULD use DHC to obtain addresses (and associated configuration information) as described above. - If the M bit is not set, clients SHOULD use DHC as described in RFC3736. Note that if M and O are not set, clients SHOULD NOT not request any information with DHC. I also reviewed <draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-08.txt>. I didn't find any mention of the M and O flags in the RFC2462bis draft. Consequently, I don't see any need to modify that draft if we adopt these changes for RFC2461bis. Comments. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bob Hinden
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Tim Chown
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Fred Baker
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Erik Nordmark
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bob Hinden
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Erik Nordmark
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Ralph Droms
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Gray, Eric
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Thomas Narten
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Tim Hartrick
- Re: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bob Hinden
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Durand, Alain
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Tim Hartrick
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Soliman, Hesham
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Soliman, Hesham
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Soliman, Hesham
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Soliman, Hesham
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: Proposed M&O bits text for RFC2461bis Bernie Volz (volz)