RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <> Wed, 16 January 2002 19:25 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18368 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:25:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA16320 for; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:25:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16049; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:17:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16029 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:17:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18049 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:17:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0GJHFW13547 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:17:15 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eamrcnt749 ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0GJHE429206 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:17:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: FROM BY eamrcnt749 ; Wed Jan 16 13:17:13 2002 -0600
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <ZP0QNY7G>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:17:13 -0600
Message-ID: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CD99@EAMBUNT705>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <>
To: "''" <>,
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:17:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19EC2.64E94DE0"
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>

After thinking about this more and after seeing the other discussion on this subject, I'm not sure exactly when or why this option would be needed. But on the other than, it technically isn't needed in IPv4 either because ICMP redirects and other routing table distribution techniques exist and DHCPv4 does have such an option (and a revised one to carry classless routes).
So, we can do one of two things:
1. Include it and consider DHCPv6 as a toolbox and those people that want to use it (and those clients that want to support it) do so. For example, Solaris 8 includes the route command and it supports IPv6 routing table operations. Can anyone who has lots of experience with IPv6 deployment indicate whether there is a need to statically add routing table entries?
2. Wait until someone has a clear case of needing it and have it defined in some future document.
If we do want to include it, questions to ponder:
- Should any lifetimes be associated with the routes? Either one lifetime for all routes or each route?
- Should this option be encapsulated within an IA? That way, it would be renewed with the IA.
I myself am leaning more towards recommending we wait until a need is found.
- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijayabhaskar A K []
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:13 PM
To: 'Bernie Volz (EUD)';
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

This option format looks ok for me. We can include it.