Brian,
In the email below you touch lightly on the discussion about routes with
DHCP (default or otherwise).
I wonder whether we have a conclusion on that discussion?
My understanding is that at the last F2F meeting in Paris there was
strong opposition in doing routes with DHCP. And that on the mailing
list there is activity that supports both.
A suggestion I received privately is to rather develop Neighbor
Discovery Prefix Delegation, instead of DHCP default route (if I want to
save on the number of messages).
I wonder whether draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 is going to be
updated and how?
In the mif agenda of the Vancouver meeting I do not see any presentation
about this topic.
What
Le 21/07/2012 14:15, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
Hi Zhen,
On 21/07/2012 13:03, Zhen Cao wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wasn't this already answered?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01784.html
That points out the issues in 4191.
The message only stated that the draft defined improved RIO and two
other options, but did not answer why we need this.
Yes it did:
"It is defined exactly for this purpose to clearly indicate the next
hop address associated with the right RPO, to avoid any inconsistency
arising from sending the two in two different options."
My pesronal opinion, fwiw, is that given the strength of opinion
for both RA and DHCPv6 deployment scenarios, we have to define both
solutions, with identical semantics if possible. Probably a single RFC
that specifies both would be the safest way to get the same semantics.
Brian
I record and check the Paris meeting minutes when the DHCP route
option draft was discussed. The consensus was the group should
continue to work on this problem, but whether we continue with the
DHCP approach was not resolved. ND extension may be a potential
approach. But before that I agree with chair that everybody would like
to know why existing approaches do not work.
Regards,
Zhen
Hi, Behcet,
I would only like to see the presentation about how 4191 can not solve the
issue about multiple interfaces, not about proposal.
we can discuss it during the preparation time.
thanks
-Hui
2012/7/19 Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com>
Hi Hui,
Please see inline.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Hui Deng <denghu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello authors,
I recall that there was discussion on this draft, but haven't finished,
can
you help to clarify further on this?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01785.html
We don't think that there is a problem with RFC 4191.
However, latest developments like the advent of multiple interfaced
smart phones and multi-homed hosts bring the need to add a few new RA
options.
That's all.
Regards,
Behcet
Best,
-Hui
2012/7/11 Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com>
A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route
Revision: 01
Title: IPv6 RA Options for Multiple Interface Next Hop Routes
Creation date: 2012-07-10
WG ID: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 9
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01.txt
Status:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01
Diff:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01
Abstract:
This draft defines new Router Advertisement options for configuring
next hop routes on the mobile or fixed nodes. Using these options,
an operator can easily configure nodes with multiple interfaces (or
otherwise multi-homed) to enable them to select the routes to a
destination. Each option is defined together with definitions of
host and router behaviors.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
