RE: RFC7084

Agree, but it does not mandate ia_na, does it ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otroan@employees.org] 
Sent: dinsdag 10 december 2013 15:59
To: Wuyts Carl
Cc: Simon Perreault; 6man WG
Subject: Re: RFC7084

Carl,

> M=1 equals Managed flag = request ia_na or/and ia_pd.
> Please note a router is also acting as host.

that is wrong. the M-flag does not give a hint about prefix delegation.
the M flag is a hint from the network that stateful address assignment might be available.

cheers,
Ole

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca] 
> Sent: dinsdag 10 december 2013 15:28
> To: Wuyts Carl; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC7084
> 
> Le 2013-12-10 09:25, Wuyts Carl a écrit :
>> M=1 should not be equal to force request ia_na.
> 
> What should M=1 mean then?
> 
>> what's the purpose of having separate options (ia_na and ia_pd)  if you're going to request both of them anyway ?
> 
> The answer to that seems simple to me: an end host would never request IA_PD. Only routers would.
> 
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------