[dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 22 January 2002 20:28 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 PAA09158 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:28:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA10976 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:28:35 -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 PAA09566; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:11:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09546 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:11:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08656 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:10:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-85.cisco.com [161.44.149.85]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA03276 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:10:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020122145946.036d26a0@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:10:55 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call
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
These two options were proposed during the WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt. - Default routes A default routes option is unnecessary because of neighbor discovery/router advertisements; is there some other reason to configure a host with default routes? - Static routes The static routes option has been discussed in the thread "static route option for dhcpv6". The summary of the discussion is that a static routes option might be useful to configure a host for tunnels. Please follow up with comments about whether we should define these two options for DHCPv6. - Ralph _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Warren Belfer
- Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Jim Bound
- RE: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Bernie Volz (EUD)