Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>    When these options enable stateless address configuration (i.e., when
>    the A flag in a Prefix Information Option is set to 1) hosts using the
>    anonymity profile SHOULD perform stateless address configuration
>    and SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6, because stateless configuration
>
> I don't see how that text is different from the text that's already in
> the draft, except it actually provides clear guidance. Why not use it?

The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.

I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying whether hosts should use one or the other.

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]