Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Fri, 18 January 2002 21:47 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 QAA28347 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:47:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA06149 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:47:28 -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 QAA06022; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05934 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA28195 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:41:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA25197; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:40:54 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:40:54 -0500
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
In-Reply-To: <8140000.1011342023@elgar>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020118163536.11363C-100000@www.bit-net.com>
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
> --On Donnerstag, Januar 17, 2002 12:29:00 -0500 Jim Bound > <seamus@bit-net.com> wrote: > > > We need the static route option for the dentist office scenarios of IPv6 > > where there are two lans and no routers or as VJ pointed out ipv6forwardin > > g is turned on and not doing RAs. > > But doesn't an IPv6 router that isn't sending his router advertisements > violate the IPv6 spec? In this case DHCPv6 should not support this feature > in this way. THere are no routers in the dentist office scenario. Inn this scenario the nodes use all link-local addresses. This is also a reason why stateful IPv6 address configuration is needed ala dhcpv6. A router that does send RAs may not send necessary static routes. Like a server that sets the isarouter variable and only sends prefix RAs for configuration. I need to check the spec though thats a good point. I don't think ND mandates a router must do this. It should not IMO as it may want to let another router send RAs for routing but not addr conf. /jim > > > > > We also want it for configured tunnels and its different than DSTM. > > Ok, I agree with using it for configured tunnels. But I would choose > another name, like IPv4 Tunnel End Point. > > > > > We should also keep it simple as a config parameter. > > Yes. > > > > > I see no pain here and it is needed. Its a simple option to add and > > necessary for early IPv6 deployment as VJ pointed out in first mails. > > > > regards, > > > > > > /jim > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Vijay Bhaskar A K wrote: > > > >> Please see my comments inline. > >> > >> ~Vijay. > >> > >> > After thinking about this more and after seeing the other discussion > >> > on this subject, I'm not sure exactly when or why this option would be > >> > needed. But on the other than, it technically isn't needed in IPv4 > >> > either because ICMP redirects and other routing table distribution > >> > techniques exist and DHCPv4 does have such an option (and a revised > >> > one to carry classless routes). > >> > > >> > So, we can do one of two things: > >> > 1. Include it and consider DHCPv6 as a toolbox and those people that > >> > want to use it (and those clients that want to support it) do so. For > >> > example, Solaris 8 includes the route command and it supports IPv6 > >> > routing table operations. Can anyone who has lots of experience with > >> > IPv6 deployment indicate whether there is a need to statically add > >> > routing table entries? 2. Wait until someone has a clear case of > >> > needing it and have it defined in some future document. > >> > >> Assume the following scenaria. > >> - There are 2 networks A and B. > >> - There is a node n connected to both the network, and it has enabled > >> ipv6-forwarding and not sending router advertisements. > >> > >> Now, a node in network A gets an address from the DHCPv6 server and now > >> it wants to communicate with a node in network B. In the current > >> scenario, the route has to be manually configured, then only, it will be > >> able to contact the node in network B. With static route option, we can > >> autoconfigure it. This will be more helpful in getting minimal > >> configuration for smaller networks, which don't have any router > >> advertisements and for the networks which have not completely deployed > >> routing mechanisms. > >> > >> It will be useful in the getting the configured tunnels also. > >> > >> > > >> > 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 think, we can treat this as another configuration parameter. We don't > >> need to mix up with IA. If there are multiple IAs with same prefix, > >> then this static route is common for all these IAs. Whenever there is a > >> change in the static route, we can use reconfiguration mechanism to > >> update it. > >> > >> > > >> > I myself am leaning more towards recommending we wait until a need is > >> > found. > >> > > >> > - Bernie > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Vijayabhaskar A K [mailto:vijayak@india.hp.com] > >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:13 PM > >> > To: 'Bernie Volz (EUD)'; dhcwg@ietf.org > >> > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 > >> > > >> > > >> > Bernie, > >> > This option format looks ok for me. We can include it. > >> > Vijay > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ____Vijay_Bhaskar_A_K____ > >> ______Inet_Services______ > >> ________HP_ISO___________ > >> ______Ph:_2051424________ > >> ____Telnet:_847_1424_____ > >> ___Pager:_9624_371137____ > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Bernie Volz (EUD)
- 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 Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Jim Bound
- 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 John Schnizlein
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Jim Bound
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling