RE: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6

"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Fri, 21 May 2004 12:43 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27632; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR94X-0007Xt-1h; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:24:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR8Q0-0007Jz-6L for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:42:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25169 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:42:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR8Pz-0006bK-Cw for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:42:27 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR8Oy-0006QS-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:41:25 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR8Nx-00065M-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:40:21 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2004 04:43:29 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i4LBdk32011571; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-1-102.cisco.com [10.86.240.102]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id AIR09323; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "'Cristian Cadar'" <Cristian.Cadar@netlab.nec.de>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 07:39:45 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <000601c43f28$50c3fdc0$6601a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.5709
In-Reply-To: <200405211049.33733.Cristian.Cadar@netlab.nec.de>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It would be far better to have *ONE* way in which this information is
configured and as RAs already provide it, use that mechanism.

If you can come up with a VERY GOOD motivation for why DHCPv6 needs to have
an option to specify routing information, feel free to write it up and
submit it (personal submission draft) and request for it to be considered a
Working Group item.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Cristian Cadar
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:50 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I know that this issue was already discussed on the list but 
> I ran into a problem which I would like to clarify here. 
> Seemingly the only way for getting the default router 
> information is to make use of 
> the RA. So when I'm using dhcpv6 and want get the default 
> router information 
> is it a MUST to use the RA for this pourpose? I could not 
> find any statement in any of the RFC/drafts saying that. I 
> mean for the time being I cannot see any other possibility. 
> There might be scenarios where the use of RA is not desired 
> and prefering to have a dhcpv6 option carrying this 
> information along. If the use of RA is not a MUST I think we 
> need a new option.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg