#7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
option-04
Currently draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 specifies a way for the
DHCPv6 Server to communicate a set of routes to the DHCPv6 Client. This
covers both specific routes and the particular case of default routes (a
default route is meant when the RT_PREFIX option is absent, or
alternatively by using 128 0 bits as RT_PREFIX).
I think this is an issue.
It's not good to have two different things to achieve the same
functionality.
Second, using default routes in the same option type of specific routes
means that they'd share the same faith - if specific routes are wrongly
configured in the same section of the config file, there is a risk that
the default route is wrongly configured too. Or, the default route is
something of last resort, so it would be better to have it configured in
a different place, communicated with a different ORO type.
Third, if a single way of configuring default an specific routes with
DHCP then this means that a bigger software implementation would be
needed even for lightweight devices. Or, lightweight devices only use a
single route - the default route.
I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes ORO.
--
----------------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: trivial | Milestone:
Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
----------------------------------+--------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
