Hi, > Therefore the answer to your question is quite simple: > It's dead, Jim.
so there were arguments for and against, and so there was no conclusion. Then, why not publish it as an experimental document in IETF ? And, then, why not find a supporter that takes this document back in the standard track, just like the relation btw RFC 5006 and 6106. Best regards, 2012/7/27 Tomek Mrugalski <[email protected]>: > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
