RE: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call
"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Wed, 23 January 2002 01:35 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 UAA16780 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:35:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA22076 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:35:04 -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 UAA21258; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:21:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA21235 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:21:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [208.237.135.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16470 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:21:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mr7.exu.ericsson.se (mr7u3.ericy.com [208.237.135.122]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0N1LRh29312 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eamrcnt749 (eamrcnt749.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.47]) by mr7.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0N1LRJ29478 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: FROM eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se BY eamrcnt749 ; Tue Jan 22 19:21:27 2002 -0600
Received: by eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <ZQBK036L>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:26 -0600
Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69BC7758@EAMBUNT705>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:23 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1A3AC.45085180"
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
Ralph: I don't see these as required for protocol operation and therefore would recommend (per your other message) to put them in a separate document. Also, these are probably not critical options as they deal with cases that will hopefully only exist in very few environments. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:11 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call These two options were proposed during the WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt. - Default routes A default routes option is unnecessary because of neighbor discovery/router advertisements; is there some other reason to configure a host with default routes? - Static routes The static routes option has been discussed in the thread "static route option for dhcpv6". The summary of the discussion is that a static routes option might be useful to configure a host for tunnels. Please follow up with comments about whether we should define these two options for DHCPv6. - Ralph _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Warren Belfer
- Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Jim Bound
- RE: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Bernie Volz (EUD)