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]

 



All,

On 2/23/16 7:50 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 12:47, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> That's actually the contrary of what the specs say today: if M=1 you do
>> DHCPv6, not SLAAC.
>>
>> I don't see any statement in 4861 that says that. Per 4861, M=1 means "DHCPv6 is available", not "nodes should do DHCPv6". Relevant text:
>>
>>       M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
>>                      set, it indicates that addresses are available via
>>                      Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6]
> 
> I agree. It’s always just been a hint, no more, no less. And it’s been discussed many times...
> 

As shepherding AD, I believe the consensus is that there is not a need
to have this document update RFC 4861/4862.

Regards,
Brian


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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