RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
"Vijayabhaskar A K" <vijayak@india.hp.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 11:29 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 GAA04097 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:29:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA26617 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:29:39 -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 GAA26499; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:20:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA26479 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:20:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from palrel11.hp.com (palrel11.hp.com [156.153.255.246]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04039 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:20:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hpuxsrv.india.hp.com (hpuxsrv.india.hp.com [15.10.45.132]) by palrel11.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D1FE001F5; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nt4147 (nt4147.india.hp.com [15.10.41.47]) by hpuxsrv.india.hp.com with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id QAA06361; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:45:57 +0530 (IST)
Reply-To: vijayak@india.hp.com
From: Vijayabhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
To: 'Martin Stiemerling' <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:51:02 +0530
Message-ID: <001c01c19e7f$e22930b0$2f290a0f@india.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-reply-to: <15200000.1011177653@elgar>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:11 PM > To: vijayak@india.hp.com; dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: 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! In the absence of an on-link IPv6 router, hosts might use configured tunnels to reach other IPv6 networks. Such routes can be sent in static-route option. > > > > > 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
- RE: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 … Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: (ngtrans) RE: [dhcwg] Questions about DHCPv6 … Jim Bound
- [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling