RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de> Wed, 16 January 2002 10:31 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03766 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:31:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id FAA25601 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:31:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA25115; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA25094 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:26:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from yamato.ccrle.nec.de (yamato.ccrle.nec.de [195.37.70.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03705 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:25:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from citadel.mobility.ccrle.nec.de ([192.168.156.1]) by yamato.ccrle.nec.de (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0GAPvH50357; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:25:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elgar (elgar.heidelberg.ccrle.nec.de [192.168.102.180]) by citadel.mobility.ccrle.nec.de (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 4B5ECC052; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:25:29 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:40:53 +0100
From: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>
To: vijayak@india.hp.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Message-ID: <15200000.1011177653@elgar>
In-Reply-To: <001a01c19e6b$45f3cf20$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
References: <001a01c19e6b$45f3cf20$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--On Mittwoch, Januar 16, 2002 14:23:30 +0530 Vijayabhaskar A K 
<vijayak@india.hp.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> RFC for autoconf says that, in the absence of router,

That's right.

> the host must use DHCP. In this case, the static
> route option will be very much helpful, for configuring
> the routes.

In the case of no on-link router, no routes are required!

>
> Regards
> Vijay
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:05 PM
>> To: vijayak@india.hp.com; dhcwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
>>
>>
>> Hi Vijay,
>>
>> why do you think a static route option is needed at all?
>> For the sake of autoconfiguration it is better to keep the routing
>> information in the routers and to provide only a default
>> router to the host
>> (which is done through the router advertisements). In the
>> case that the
>> router is not the best choice for a specific route, the
>> router will  send
>> an ICMP redirect message to the corresponding host, to inform about a
>> better router for this route.
>>
>> Regards
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> --On Dienstag, Januar 15, 2002 20:05:56 +0530 Vijayabhaskar A K
>> <vijayak@india.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I have gone through the dhcpv6 22 spec.
>> > I felt that, static route option (option 33 in RFC 2132) is missing.
>> > which is useful for routing. Can we include this option
>> > also in the spec?
>> > thanks and regards
>> > Vijay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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