RE: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6

I agree. We do not need this option.

If someone can demonstrate a solid need for this (either a list of default
routers or list of static routes), we will consider this. But if you have no
solid use case, this should be outside the scope of DHCPv6. 

In IPv4, there was no basic mechanism for a host to find router(s) and to
discover whether addresses are on or off link (ICMP messages were added
later, but I think they've been little used). This is a basic feature of
IPv6.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Robert Elz
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:00 PM
> To: Anil Kumar Reddy
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6 
> 
> 
>     Date:        Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:32:22 +0530
>     From:        "Anil Kumar Reddy" <sakreddy@india.hp.com>
>     Message-ID:  <200409101402.TAA29984@iconsrv6.india.hp.com>
> 
>   | 	I feel, having a router configuration option (similar to 
>   | 	DNS, SIP, NIS) would help the client's network connectivity 
>   | 	in the absence of RA.
> 
> As a rationale, that's useless.   If there are no RAs, there are no
> routers, RAs in v6 aren't optional.
> 
> But, it might be perhaps useful to be able to configure a 
> particular router on a net with several - and perhaps 
> different routers for different hosts, which is something 
> that RAs cannot achieve, so the option shouldn't necessarily 
> simply be discarded as completely useless.
> 
> Whether the benefit in allowing this is worth the extra 
> complexity I'm not sure I'd like to take a position on at the minute.
> 
> kre
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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