Re: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Sat, 22 May 2004 11:19 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29650; Sat, 22 May 2004 07:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRUIW-0003PS-1T; Sat, 22 May 2004 07:04:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRU7u-0000f7-8e for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 06:53:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA28067 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 May 2004 06:53:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRU7q-00029y-2N for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 06:53:10 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRU6u-00021r-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 06:52:13 -0400
Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRU6B-0001tq-00; Sat, 22 May 2004 06:51:27 -0400
Received: from magpie.ecs.soton.ac.uk (magpie.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.68.131]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4MApTWE001471; Sat, 22 May 2004 11:51:29 +0100 (BST)
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by magpie.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16099; Sat, 22 May 2004 11:51:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i4MApOP05968; Sat, 22 May 2004 11:51:24 +0100
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:51:24 +0100
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
Message-ID: <20040522105124.GD5178@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: dhcwg@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B0644C130@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B0644C130@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

This reminds me, I don't think the IPv6 nodes requirements draft has yet
gone final, since draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08 still exists on the
IETF I-D area.

Should we not update this before it goes final with the wording that has
been agreed for the M and O flags, and also to clarify the assertion below,
that RAs are the way to get default router and onlink prefix information?

It would be a shame to not convey this consensus in the nodes document.
In the draft, that's at least section 4.5.2 and 4.5.5 that probably need a 
tweak.

Tim

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:07:47PM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Christian,
> 
> I have been down this patha and I cannot see a good case for this to be
> in DHCPv6.  I concur with Eric and Bernie.  The entire conversion of
> routes on a link should come from ND RA.  Once the edge link routers
> have the prefixes it is automatic for the hosts.  I can see any good
> reason to add state to the IPv6 network architecture for route
> propogation?  
> 
> thanks
> /jim 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Cristian Cadar
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:50 AM
> > To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> > Subject: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I know that this issue was already discussed on the list but 
> > I ran into a problem which I would like to clarify here. 
> > Seemingly the only way for getting the default router 
> > information is to make use of the RA. So when I'm using 
> > dhcpv6 and want get the default router information is it a 
> > MUST to use the RA for this pourpose? I could not find any 
> > statement in any of the RFC/drafts saying that.
> > I mean for the time being I cannot see any other possibility.
> > There might be scenarios where the use of RA is not desired 
> > and prefering to have a dhcpv6 option carrying this 
> > information along. If the use of RA is not a MUST I think we 
> > need a new option.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Cristian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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