#7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
option-04
Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…):
> 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.
Operationally it is always better for things to completely fail than to
partially fail, because you see the problem immediately. In the case of
a DHCP server configuration problem, it's hard to see why it would be
easier to misconfigure a DHCP server when there is a single option than
when there are two.
> 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.
Do you know of any specific devices that have this problem?
> I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes
ORO.
I think this is a good way to solve the problem you have described, but I
don't think the problem needs to be solved. I'd be interested to hear a
specific, concrete use case for this.
--
----------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: trivial | Milestone:
Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution:
Keywords: |
----------------------------------+---------------------------------
Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7#comment:2>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
