Le 27/03/2012 15:17, Marc Blanchet a écrit :
Le 2012-03-27 à 14:38, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
Le 27/03/2012 14:05, Marc Blanchet a écrit :
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.
We could specify the specific routes part to MUST NOT send 2000::/3
as route. Would this solve that?
no. what about 2000::/4, 2000::/5 …
Well, one one hand there should exist a means to write English
about 4, 5 ... 128 prefix lengths.
On another hand, the RFCs say that only ::/0 is a default route, so we
may care more about this.
No?
Alex
Marc.
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
