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

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark at sun.com>]

Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Why?
>
> If we update the DHCPv6 protocol to allow "other configuration" options
> to be returned in an Advertise for a Solicit, Information-Request/Reply
> and Solicit/Advertise are then essentially the same in a stateless
> DHCPv6 environment (though the Solicit does require a client identifier
> and likely may require a IA_* option).
>
> Note that this will require changes to 3315 and 3736 - since stateless
> servers will need to respond to Solicits with Advertises.

Do we know we can change DHCPv6 that way without causing compatibility 
problems for any existing DHCPv6 clients? I can see such a client not 
expecting configuration information in the advertise message.
Or are we assuming that there are no 3315 DHCP clients out there?

There might also be compatibility issues on the server, since this 
appears to assume that a 3736-only server will handle Solicit messages, 
unless the clients have some logic to fallback from using Solicit to 
using Information-Requests after a few attempts.

   Erik


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