RE: purpose of m/o bit
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: purpose of m/o bit
- To: "da Silva, Ron" <rdasilva at va.rr.com>, <Richard_Woundy at cable.comcast.com>, <volz at cisco.com>, <iljitsch at muada.com>, "Thomas Narten" <narten at us.ibm.com>, "Williams, Chris" <cwilliams at va.rr.com>
- Subject: RE: purpose of m/o bit
- From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound at hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:49:59 -0400
- Cc: dhcwg at ietf.org, ipv6 at ietf.org
- List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org
- Thread-index: AcViJZrZbVZh1Iq9RIeySOTtnwFl+wABa2/AAAIQ1eA=
- Thread-topic: purpose of m/o bit
Ron,
Thanks for doing this and this permits us to discuss it simply :--).
Response on your matrix via my interpretation as implementer, no comment
on your needs and appreciate you sharing that here big time, I find it
very useful. Thanks.
> There are nine scenarios, right?
>
> 1) RA w/auto-conf, M off, O off
Stateful is not being requested by the site or admin. No requirement to
use it.
> 2) RA w/auto-conf, M on, O off
use stateful and other configurations available.
> 3) RA w/auto-conf, M off, O on
use other configurations only.
> 4) RA w/auto-conf, M on, O on
Same as #2 is my view.
> 5) RA w/o auto-conf, M off, O off
> 6) RA w/o auto-conf, M on, O off
> 7) RA w/o auto-conf, M off, O on
> 8) RA w/o auto-conf, M on, O on
My read is if auto-conf off then these bits are invalid and stateless is
default.
> 9) No RA
Your lost and not connected have it your way :--) Use link-local :--)
thanks
/jim
>
> >From a cable deployment perspective, I would expect...
>
> 1) CM stateless auto-conf from advertised route(s)
> 2) CM stateless auto-conf from advertised route(s) plus DHCPv6 for
> additional address(es)
> 3) CM stateless auto-conf from advertised route(s) plus DHCPv6 for
> addition info
> 4) CM stateless auto-conf from advertised route(s) plus DHCPv6 for
> additional address(es) and additional info
> 5) same behavior as #9 below ?
> 6) DHCPv6 for address(es) only
> 7) DHCPv6 for additional info only
> 8) DHCPv6 for address(es) and additional info
> 9) CM stateless auto-conf link local address followed by DHCPv6 for
> additional address(es) and/or other info (same behavior as #5)
>
> This seems way to complicated though, and it would be much more
> deterministic for a CM to simply do #4 in all cases which
> would make the
> M/O bits useless.
>
> -ron
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.