IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Process: draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option anddraft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router

"MILES DAVID" <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au> Mon, 01 June 2009 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E8C3A6AF8 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2009 20:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wrW99snr+u24 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2009 20:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E731A3A712E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2009 20:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-1-218-53.lucent.com [135.1.218.53]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id n513m5XI011070; Sun, 31 May 2009 22:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail.apac.alcatel-lucent.com (h202-65-2-130.alcatel.com [202.65.2.130]) by ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id n513m4Wd027804; Sun, 31 May 2009 22:48:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sgsinsbhs01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com (sgsinsbhs01.ap.lucent.com [135.254.109.34]) by mail.apac.alcatel-lucent.com (8.13.7/8.13.7/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id n513kIhS006338; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:46:25 +0800
Received: from SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com ([135.254.109.29]) by sgsinsbhs01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:48:01 +0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:48:00 +0800
Message-ID: <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D035DFC90@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <8DF42CB5-6080-4389-9362-C8C4FCED87B4@nominum.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Process: draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option anddraft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router
Thread-Index: AcnZg0oDaoNXyT7ySG2jOl55GuR1+wPB//FQ
References: <C43D8589-4584-4AED-9F26-75AF7E7B2F68@nominum.com><8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB210CD32591@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com> <8DF42CB5-6080-4389-9362-C8C4FCED87B4@nominum.com>
From: MILES DAVID <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2009 03:48:01.0666 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2F00E20:01C9E26B]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 202.65.2.130
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Process: draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option anddraft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:48:28 -0000

Ted and Bernie,

It's fair to say there is a deal of contention around DHCPv6 being used
as an alternative to RA (draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router) for
default router selection however I'm not sure I would put
draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option in the same boat (though I can see how one
could use it for such).

Per Ted's email, DHC WG already defined static route options for DHCPv4
and there is no equivalent mechanism in RA being discussed to my
knowledge. 
In the same way that the WG is considering DHCPv6 for policy table
control I see draft-dec proposing route-table control. There is a real
need to support this in broadband models (like TR-144 adapted to IPv6)
and while an alternative is to use VSO, I for one would like to see the
WG look at static route options for DHCPv6. 


-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email