IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com> Sat, 22 May 2004 04:21 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 AAA25480 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:21:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNv0-0001wW-9T for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:15:30 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4M4FU2k007466 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:15:30 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNp0-0000Ve-VM for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:09:18 -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 AAA24994 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRNoy-0000s6-DA for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:09:16 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNoW-0000l5-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:08:49 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNnW-0000c2-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:07:46 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNf8-00073d-9P; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:59:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNS4-0004zP-LT for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:45:36 -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 XAA23941 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:45:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRNS1-0005mN-RY for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:45:34 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNQp-0005dM-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:44:20 -0400
Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNPT-0005TE-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:42:55 -0400
Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F588DA; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 21 May 2004 23:42:56 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and related protocols
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:42:52 -0400
Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B0644C136@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Thread-Topic: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and related protocols
Thread-Index: AcQ+mIMPSEmBPaHOTjmzTB7ST0szCwBFk0+Q
From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Cc: 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
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 May 2004 03:42:56.0733 (UTC) FILETIME=[DEC1F8D0:01C43FAE]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

OK.  I agree too.
thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:Erik.Nordmark@sun.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:32 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Erik Nordmark; Christian Huitema; Ralph Droms; JINMEI 
> Tatuya / 神明達哉; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] relationship between M/O flags and 
> related protocols
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
 DÅ ûúŠäŠx ®‹©™¨¥Šx%ŠËb¦þ¢z×讚)â²ÚÚ¶+ÞEê®zËl†Ûi³ÿðÃ
bz×è®æj)fjåŠËbú?Š›ú

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email