Re: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

[Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>]

In your letter dated Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:00:51 +0200 you wrote:
>Why aren't you also claiming that M and O flag behaviour as specified by
>this document requires a change of 4861? That same logic of tightening the
>spec to fit a specific type of device applies there too, and arguably is one
>of the main values of this draft.

Because in my opinion those flags are for the autoconfiguration of hosts.
And the only must I could find in the draft is that router must do a DHCPv6
request for a prefix.