Le 2012-03-27 à 13:47, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>
> When setting up routes one would like to make sure they're right and
> they lead somewhere at least most of the time. At the smart end node
> and dumb network, there should always exist a fallback and that fallback
> is typically the default route ("when everything else fails").
>
> In this sense, if the end node sets up its routes with DHCP, it would
> like to be sure they're right most of the time, otherwise use the
> default route.
>
> But when the default route _and_ the other more specific routes are
> provided by DHCP, and if failing, then there is a risk of misconfiguration.
yes and no. ipv6 stack is pretty good in actively tracking if routers are up.
in fact, having the default route or not does not change the basic issue, which
is, to me, a trust issue.
say for example that you have two different types as you suggest: one for more
specific routes and one for default route.
well, if the dhcpv6 server sends you a specific route such as 2000::/3, it is
almost a default route, and moreover, it will be preferred over the
(good,appropriate) default routes.
Therefore, a specific type does not help the problem.
So your proposal does not help the root issue which is, to me, does the node
trust the dhcpv6 server for routes insertions.
Marc.
>
> Something that could be done about this is the use of different Types in
> DHCP (ORO) for specific routes and a different Type for default routes.
> This would mean not only that the config file owuld have different
> sections for default routes vs specific routes (thus guide the Server's
> administrator to double check the default part) but also the DHCP Client
> implementation to have separate software sections for specific routes vs
> default routes. Some lighter DHCP Clients may choose to implement
> _only_ the default route option part (and not the specific route part).
>
> With respect to this there was also a question about compliance with
> specs - if a stack doesn implement eg ICMP Redirect then it's not
> compliant. Do we want to ensure the same level of strength in
> compliance with DHCP? Even for low end devices?
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
