Re: RFC7084

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Le 2013-12-10 02:13, Wuyts Carl a écrit :
>> Again, you're binding WRONG the M to ia_na.  this is really not good.
>> Let us implement standards based upon what they are designed for.  The
>> M-flag was initially designed to flag the device to be Managed, not to
>
>  From RFC4861:
>
> M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
>                        set, it indicates that addresses are available via
>                        Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].
>
> I interpret this as M=1 means addresses are available via DHCPv6, that means IA_NA and/or IA_PD, one or both might be available. I don't really understand why you do not. What do you think the M flag means? Reading the above text seems to indicate that you think it has something to do with managing the CPE?
>
> [Carl] Correct, as you state and/OR, not AND only.  RFC7084 today says AND.

Am I the only one not understanding Carl's point? I would really like to 
understand...

> [Carl] why ask for both ?  Why making diff between the 2 if you always ask for both ?  Why not asking all options and just wait and see what you get back ?

As others previously explained, you're free to implement it that way if 
you prefer: do SLAAC and DHCPv6 simultaneously, and see what you get back.

If I was implementing a CPE, that's what I would do. I would completely 
ignore the M bit, and the SLAAC and DHCPv6 processes would be like ships 
in the night.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca