RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

--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