I have seen a reasonable number of sites that have multiple clients on the same wire (one broadcast domain) who want to be able to differentiate those clients into different groups, with different configurations.
This may be for different classes of services, billing to different departments, different security zones, etc. but they want to be able to have different prefixes and different routes based on this. While we can argue that using IP address as a way of differentiating is error prone, it does work well for a number of companies. This is not to avoid using an RA. However, an RA can't give different answers to different clients on the same wire, nor do I think it should. Current RA design is still clean and simple and we should try to keep it that way. DHCP is designed to handle lots of complex configuration information, with a broad range of different clients having different needs, so it seems much more appropriate to have DHCP be able to hand out these configurations, including a default route. As to whether or not this draft should be in the mif WG, I have been away from the IETF process long enough that I am not as clear on standard protocol. I do agree that being able to have different clients have different answers for default route would be useful to more than multi-interface hosts (single interface, homenet, etc.). But this draft seems to have been in mif for quite a while. It does seem that suddenly changing its working group now is a bit odd; I'd be inclined to keep it here just so we can keep the draft moving. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
