Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents

["Charles E. Perkins" <charliep at computer.org>]

Hello Shubhranshu,

Yes, I think we are in agreement on this.
But this model of operation was not very clear
from the way the discussion transpired at the
recent IETF meeting.  As long as the DHCP-style
of stateful autoconfiguration is enabled and
yet not in any way mandated, I think most people
would be happy.

Regards,
Charlie P.


Shubhranshu wrote:
> Hello Charlie,
> 
> On 3/21/08, Charles E. Perkins <charles.perkins at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Hello Shubhranshu,
>>
>> Shubhranshu wrote:
>>>  ...   in the subordinate MANET,
>>> availability of DHCP server can be assumed and thus a MANET node could
>>> contact it (directly or via relay agent) for configuration of
>>> addresses/prefixes.
>>>
>> Do you really think so?  Is every network attached to the
>> Internet managed by DHCP?  Shouldn't we allow for
>> networks that follow the stateless autoconfiguration
>> model of IPv6?
>>
>> Perhaps we should instead say that, in many
>> circumstances, DHCP is appropriate for use
>> with subordinate networks.
> 
> 
> In my previous mail, I didn't mean always (else I'd have used
> "should"). So we are on the same page. And thats why we have IPv6
> stateless autoconfiguration as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Shubhranshu
> 
> 
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf