IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 16:23 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 LAA12992 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:23:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA07668 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:23:54 -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 LAA07096; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:08:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07068 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:08:45 -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 LAA12517 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:08:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.2.Beta4/8.12.2.Beta4) id g0GG8fO1016912 for dhcwg@ietf.org env-from <vjs>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:08:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:08:41 -0700
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <200201161608.g0GG8fO1016912@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
references: <8370000.1011183958@elgar>
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: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>
> To: vijayak@india.hp.com, dhcwg@ietf.org

> >> 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.
>
> Yes, this might be useful, but doesn't sound directly like static routes, 
> but more than transistioning mechanismen (IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel). There are 
> two DSTM options in the draft, but they may not be sufficient for this 
> purpose.

Doesn't IPv6 have an equivalent to the router discovery protocol?


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email