Re: DHCPv6 address used when M or O bit is set

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org> Wed, 04 April 2012 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF4211E810B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOENv6U06YrO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5E211E8099 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ED335F9899; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 20:53:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org)
Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:64:29b5:717e:cb39:df80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CB87216C33; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 20:52:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:52:57 -0700
Message-ID: <m2limbte1i.wl%jinmei@isc.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isc.org>
To: Dominik Elsbroek <dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 address used when M or O bit is set
In-Reply-To: <CAAVMDnW2ZvzOAqkCSvgSL3yRFYEW8TpGjcZ0NTct8zPH7WKkjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAVMDnVNUaXBwi5cU87+0PkB71kdT+e4BaLUW7Ai39hCWitUrw@mail.gmail.com> <4F7C56BE.6010507@si6networks.com> <CAAVMDnW2ZvzOAqkCSvgSL3yRFYEW8TpGjcZ0NTct8zPH7WKkjg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:53:07 -0000

At Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:45 +0200,
Dominik Elsbroek <dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What's removed is the corresponding text, not the bits. See page 19 of
> > RFC 4861: the bits are still there.
> 
> In RFC4862, Appendix C there is one point:
> 
> Removed the text regarding the M and O flags, considering the
>       maturity of implementations and operational experiences.
>       ManagedFlag and OtherConfigFlag were removed accordingly.  (Note
>       that this change does not mean the use of these flags is
>       deprecated.)
> 
> Not sure how to interprete this. Perhapts I am just missing a link,
> but M and O flag in RFC 4861 doesn't tell how to do SLAAC, e.g. when
> the nameserver should be determined by DHCPv6-server.

As clearly noted, "removed" doesn't mean these flags were deprecated
in the protocol.  They were simply removed from the RFC4862 text as an
out-of-scope item for that particular RFC (and the assumption was they
should be standardized in other documents).

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.