[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 [] (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 []) 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 []) 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 []) 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 []) 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: <>
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 

- 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 

- 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