Alexandru, On 25/07/2012 16:07, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > 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?
I haven't seen a clear conclusion, and of course it is not a topic for MIF alone. It really is a cross-WG and cross-Area question. > 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. Indeed. There are certainly people whose preferred deployment scenarios favour one or the other. That hasn't changed in the last 5 years. > 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 think the objective evidence is that the market wants both. Although, as the editor of RFC 1958, I support its principle "If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one", there are times when this is unrealistic. > 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 What, indeed! Brian > > 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
