IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B3121F9C53 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AXAU-4RJhjL6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9126C21F99BD for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUhY3RhRFMVcEVYSVYzsVgh01m8mvaaFO@postini.com; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:34 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B19F1B82BA for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C384E190071; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:07:26 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
Thread-Index: AQHOnxAt8+wFVtUaWk6Fo5RISSOBg5mh2psA
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:07:26 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775261BE8@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EEDD8B410@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5214BF85.8020509@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FA8A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAC8QAcfaT2c3j1aFS0Qf2bieRs_MH1xov7CjE0POhMnU75YuiA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FDB5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <5215C910.1040600@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5215C910.1040600@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <0DD008C3C537044E9D625427705FBD99@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:07:41 -0000

On Aug 22, 2013, at 1:17 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is this kind of snooping I refer to, and maybe less the explicit
> indication from a server to install a particular route (which was
> controversial in MIF).  This is a distinction which could be part of an document.

I don't understand the point you are making.   There's no controversy about PD affecting routing, other than that the routing guys would ideally prefer to use a routing protocol for it.   But fate-sharing argues _for_ PD snooping, not against it.   So it's completely different than the discussion about default routes being delivered to end nodes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email