Re: [rfc2462bis] whether we need the M/O flags

[JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L at C#:H(B <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>]

>>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT), 
>>>>> Tim Hartrick <tim@mentat.com> said:

> 	I believe that it is entirely too late in the life of this protocol
> to be removing these bits.  If there is in fact confusion over their usage
> then the usage should be clarified.  The original intent of this revision was
> to clarify portions of the specification which were not clear, not to open every
> feature for the full-scale debate and revision.  There is running, shipping
> code that makes use of these bits.  What, exactly, is the upside in breaking
> that code?

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "running, shipping
code that makes use of these bits."  In particular, are you referring
to particular implementations that

  - invoke DHCPv6 on the reception of an RA with the M flag being set
  - invoke DHCPv6 or (so called) stateless-DHCPv6 on the reception of
    an RA with the O flag being set

?  If so, could you tell me which implementations do?

Once again, I'm not necessarily pushing the idea of "deprecating" the
M/O flags.  Also, breaking existing code is the last thing I want to
do.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------