[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Stateful != M , Stateless != O
From:       JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
Date:       2004-08-26 7:40:56
Message-ID: y7vr7pucpo7.wl () ocean ! jinmei ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:50:26 +0530, 
>>>>> Syam Madanapalli <syam@samsung.com> said:

>> >> M has no impact on stateless autoconf.  The existence
>> >> of prefixes in the RA marked as "autoconf from this
>> >> prefix" controls stateless autoconf.  If M=0 and no
>> >> prefixes are advertised as autoconf-able, the host
>> >> has no assertion that DHCP is available and no prefixes
>> >> to autoconf addresses from.
>> >>
>> >> If M=1 and autoconf prefixes are available, the host
>> >> does both DHCP and stateless autoconf.
>> 
>> I completely agree with Ralph.
>> 
>> > Why is that any host needs to get two addresses?
>> > Is there any scenario where this is useful?
>> 
>> I don't think this is the right question.  The question should be,
>> IMO, "why should we prohibit the simultaneous use of stateful and
>> stateless?"

> My question is, why should we allow simultaneous use of Stateful
> and Statless methods independently to get the address?

I know your question, and I don't think that's the right question as I
said in the previous message.

Perhaps we just have different views on which we can simply not
agree.  Unless we are going to modify the specification based on this
discussion, it's probably better to stop the discussion here.

					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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]