Le 30/03/2012 14:58, Ted Lemon a écrit :
Alexandru, I think the major misunderstanding here has to do with
your use case. The route option as it was floated was not
originally intended to address your use case, and when it was changed
to address your use case, it got a lot less popular. Thiss was not
because there's anything wrong with your use case, but because it
came to be perceived as more applicable to use cases where, from an
architectural perspective, the IETF would prefer to use RA. That
is, it came to be perceived as a generic replacement for RA, which
wasn't what the working group set out to do.
It doesnt sound pleasant to me to hear so.
But let's talk in terms of next steps.
I remember having insisted on default routes at a time when
draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-05 was out, or even earlier.
Do you think it is that which may have induced later disapproval?
Would this imply to suggest next steps of route-option without default
routes? I would not oppose such way forward.
What would be the possible ways forward?
Alex
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
