> Would this imply to suggest next steps of route-option without default > routes? I would not oppose such way forward.
I think this would be a lot more palatable to the IETF as a whole. As to the history, remember that it was after WGLC that the IETF as a whole saw this draft, and objections were raised. Nobody in MIF particularly objected to the default route support, because we understood the use cases for the option, but when it went to the IETF at large, a lot of people read the draft for the first time who didn't understand what motivated it, and so to them it looked like an RA replacement for general use in all networks. And the draft certainly did nothing to disabuse them of that notion. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
