RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 22:57 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 RAA23007 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:57:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA23625 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:57:21 -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 RAA23146; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:43:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA23120 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:43:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22699 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:43:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.2.Beta4/8.12.2.Beta4) id g0GMhfbx029749 for dhcwg@ietf.org env-from <vjs>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:43:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:43:41 -0700 (MST)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <200201162243.g0GMhfbx029749@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
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

> From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>

> ...
> If we do want to include it, questions to ponder:
> - Should any lifetimes be associated with the routes? Either one
> lifetime for all routes or each route?
> - Should this option be encapsulated within an IA? That way, it
> would be renewed with the IA.
>  
> I myself am leaning more towards recommending we wait until a need is found.


Perhaps another way of saying the same thing is "are you sure you want
to make DHCP into a routing protocol?"  In practice, the IPv4 router
discovery protocol has plenty of problems that a DHCP client really
doesn't need.

I say this as the author of the `routed` in FreeBSD, NetBSD, and some
commercial UNIX brands (yes, plural).  Part of my excuse for the
from-scratch rewrite of Sam Leffler's primordial code was to support
IRDP, because the consensus wisdom was that IRDP was better than RIP
as a router discovery protocol.  A naive (on my part) result is that
the commonly distributed `routed` prefers IRDP.  In the simplest cases,
it might well be true that IRDP is a better router discovery protocol
than RIP, but it turns out that there are quite common less simple
cases where RIP is clearly better.  I wonder if those who want to make
DHCP into an router discovery protocol have much experience with IRDP
with multi-homed hosts and other minor complications.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com

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