RE: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit

["Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz at cisco.com>]

Also, the servers aren't impacted by the M/O bits. They don't use them.

Though changing the DHCPv6 protocol as we've contemplated, would impact
the servers and the clients.

But if you're currently deploying with either the M set or the O set,
there is no problem. Sure, if a client talks to a new server it might
get other configuration parameters in an Advertise, but I doubt that
would cause it to fail (it would likely just ignore the parameters).

The only situation where these changes would impact clients is if a new
client communicates with an old server. Since the old server won't send
other configuration parameters. So, yes the servers would need to be
upgraded in order to use newer clients.

- Bernie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:40 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); dhcwg at ietf.org; Iljitsch van Beijnum; 
> ipv6 at ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit
> 
> On May 27, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > ughh. sorry know of three production servers in use Lucent, HP, and
> > Linux version.
> >
> 
> That's not what I mean.   The point is that it's early days, and  
> updating servers isn't a hard problem.   My point is that I don't  
> know of any widespread deployments we'd be breaking right now, not  
> that there are no implementations.
> 

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