On 12-07-25 17:07, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> I wonder whether draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 is going to be
> updated and how?
Alex,
I'm not aware of such plans. After Paris meeting I got the impression
that MIF decided to not continue work on this particular draft, but
chose to continue working on the problem, while not excluding DHCP as
potential delivery mechanism. I must admit that such decision seems
somewhat inconsistent IMHO. If the DHCP is a viable way to solve the
problem, then why this work is abandoned? Or put it the other way
around: if this approach is broken beyond repair, why bother to try
another attempt with DHCP? My perception is that major objections raised
were generic to the whole DHCP protocol, not those specific options
("you can't invalidate the data after server crash", "you don't have any
means of immediately notifying client that don't support reconfigure").
Obviously, the problem touches areas of many WGs, not just MIF.
Therefore I hoped to receive some form of guidance from ADs after Paris,
but sadly that hasn't materialized. At least according to my knowledge.
Please do let me know if I have missed it.
One of the major objections raised by opponents of the DHCP solution was
default route configuration. At one point in time, it was considered if
dropping the ability to configure default route would be a viable
compromise. Sadly, such change would render the solution almost useless
for MIF environment, so probably another adoption would be required. And
there was no clear indication whether RA advocates would accept it in
that form anyway, so the idea was promptly dropped.
Brian's comment about defining both RA and DHCPv6 solutions with
identical semantics seems valid. It would solve two major objections.
First, it would provide a way to invalidate routes in case of router or
DHCP server crash. Second, it would allow to immediately notify the node
of any configuration changes (even those that don't support DHCPv6
reconfigure mechanism). However, I doubt it would change minds of some
RA advocates ("RA and nothing else" approach).
Therefore the answer to your question is quite simple:
It's dead, Jim.
> In the mif agenda of the Vancouver meeting I do not see any
> presentation about this topic.
There won't be any.
Cheers,
Tomek
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
