Re: RFC7084

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 09 December 2013 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2CB1AE124; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:14:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LccqSBvttqyb; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C45B1AE119; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE1F51; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:14:15 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LgzIidwF1d+i; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:14:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F32634; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:14:12 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: RFC7084
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <06F520D6-675B-4E38-909F-7D33E76C6B53@employees.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:14:11 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD6FE77F-1D16-48C1-BFB8-A7DD5DA93108@steffann.nl>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <F44ABDBE-B3A7-4784-8EBE-D81EE0EBE362@steffann.nl> <06F520D6-675B-4E38-909F-7D33E76C6B53@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:14:21 -0000

Hi,

Op 9 dec. 2013, om 23:02 heeft Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> het volgende geschreven:

>> Actually the other way around: M=1 is linked to ia_na but not to ia_pd. A CPE always does ia_pd, regardless of the M flag, but the ia_na is only requested when M=1.
> 
> the text is written so that there does not have to be any binding between RA processing and the DHCP state machine.
> a CPE can simply ignore the O/M flags, and always request an IA_NA.

Ah, good to know. I always interpreted the M flag as 'there is a stateful DHCPv6 server available'. I never really though about doing IA_NA when M=0, but I guess the client is always free to try :-)

Thanks,
Sander