Re: RA "requires" DHCPv6 ?

Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Sat, 31 March 2012 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
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 4BC8A21F86B6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
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 qkMj4ka2LFMq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA2421F86A3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [60.242.128.199] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1SDx1Q-00054q-8Q; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:03:18 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:03:04 +1100
Subject: Re: RA "requires" DHCPv6 ?
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CB9D3D7B.2263B%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: RA "requires" DHCPv6 ?
In-Reply-To: <1333148248.2624.187.camel@karl>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: hesham@elevatemobile.com
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:03:46 -0000

Just a quick comment below

>There was a bunch of stuff about the M and O flags in RFC2462, almost
>all of which was removed in RFC4862. In RFC2462, the word
>"should" (*not* capitalised) was used, along with phrases like "is to
>be".

=> "should" does not need to be capitalised to indicate that it's a
keyword. It's a common misunderstanding.

Hesham

>
>Then there is RFC 4861 (neighbor discovery) which says:
>
>      M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
>                     set, it indicates that addresses are available via
>                     Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].
>[...]
>      O              1-bit "Other configuration" flag.  When set, it
>                     indicates that other configuration information is
>                     available via DHCPv6.
>
>Anyway, I've been working on the basis that the M and O flags are
>advisory and not prescriptive. That is, they do not *require* the host
>to do anything.
>
>Regards, K.
>
>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
>http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
>
>GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
>Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------