RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com> Fri, 18 January 2002 20:52 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 PAA26471 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:52:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA04083 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:52:24 -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 PAA03004; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:26:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA02977 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:26:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25843 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:26:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from JSCHNIZL-W2K1.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-326.cisco.com [10.82.241.70]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id MAA12232; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:23:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020118151943.01892130@diablo.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:22:36 -0500
To: <vijayak@india.hp.com>
From: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Cc: "'Martin Stiemerling'" <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>, "'Jim Bound'" <seamus@bit-net.com>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <000901c1a04a$aba84400$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
References: <8140000.1011342023@elgar>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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

At 01:05 PM 1/18/2002, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:

>Please note that, there are no routers in the networks. That's why
>i mentioned that node as the one conneceted to two network and having
>ipv6forwarding enabled, instead of routers. This is for the networks
>which have not deployed IPv6 routing completely. I think there is no
>harm in having this option.

If the purpose of the option is to enable situations where hosts
have ipv6forwarding enabled, but do not act as proper v6 routers,
then we should not support it. That is just bad practice. (IMHO)
The use for tunnelling might be justifiable.

John


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