#7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
option-04
Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…):
> If there are two options instead of one this encorages the implementer
> to dedicate different sections in the dhcpd.conf file, and allocate a
> specific keyword for _default_ route. This is something that strikes
> the eye an makes him/her more cautious about what to put there in that
> single place.
The usability problem you describe here is not a protocol issue, but a
user interface issue. It's entirely possible that if we should decide to
use two options, some DHCP implementations will present both options using
the same user interface. So changing the underlying protocol does not
address this issue, whether it is a serious issue or not.
Also, pink elephants may evolve in the future. Such elephants could
potentially step on hosts that are attempting to configure routes.
Should the IETF henceforth mandate the presence of a Pink Elephant
Considerations section in all drafts?
> Hm, use cases. If I insist is that I believe there are some maybe under
> development.
Okay, so name one.
> What do the others think about this issue?
I can't speak for them, but I suspect they are wishing we would both shut
up about this and work on something useful.
--
----------------------------------+---------------------------------
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:3>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
