Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de> Fri, 18 January 2002 08:30 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 DAA03895 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:30:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id DAA00294 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:30:33 -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 DAA29909; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:21:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA29885 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:21:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from yamato.ccrle.nec.de (yamato.ccrle.nec.de [195.37.70.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03687 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 03:21:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from citadel.mobility.ccrle.nec.de ([192.168.156.1]) by yamato.ccrle.nec.de (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0I8KsH64241; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:20:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elgar (elgar.heidelberg.ccrle.nec.de [192.168.102.180]) by citadel.mobility.ccrle.nec.de (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 0BCD7C05B; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:20:25 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:20:23 +0100
From: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>
To: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Message-ID: <8140000.1011342023@elgar>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020117122526.11550A-100000@www.bit-net.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020117122526.11550A-100000@www.bit-net.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--On Donnerstag, Januar 17, 2002 12:29:00 -0500 Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> wrote: > We need the static route option for the dentist office scenarios of IPv6 > where there are two lans and no routers or as VJ pointed out ipv6forwardin > g is turned on and not doing RAs. But doesn't an IPv6 router that isn't sending his router advertisements violate the IPv6 spec? In this case DHCPv6 should not support this feature in this way. > > We also want it for configured tunnels and its different than DSTM. Ok, I agree with using it for configured tunnels. But I would choose another name, like IPv4 Tunnel End Point. > > We should also keep it simple as a config parameter. Yes. > > I see no pain here and it is needed. Its a simple option to add and > necessary for early IPv6 deployment as VJ pointed out in first mails. > > regards, > > > /jim > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Vijay Bhaskar A K wrote: > >> Please see my comments inline. >> >> ~Vijay. >> >> > 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. >> >> Assume the following scenaria. >> - There are 2 networks A and B. >> - There is a node n connected to both the network, and it has enabled >> ipv6-forwarding and not sending router advertisements. >> >> Now, a node in network A gets an address from the DHCPv6 server and now >> it wants to communicate with a node in network B. In the current >> scenario, the route has to be manually configured, then only, it will be >> able to contact the node in network B. With static route option, we can >> autoconfigure it. This will be more helpful in getting minimal >> configuration for smaller networks, which don't have any router >> advertisements and for the networks which have not completely deployed >> routing mechanisms. >> >> It will be useful in the getting the configured tunnels also. >> >> > >> > 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 think, we can treat this as another configuration parameter. We don't >> need to mix up with IA. If there are multiple IAs with same prefix, >> then this static route is common for all these IAs. Whenever there is a >> change in the static route, we can use reconfiguration mechanism to >> update it. >> >> > >> > I myself am leaning more towards recommending we wait until a need is >> > found. >> > >> > - Bernie >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Vijayabhaskar A K [mailto:vijayak@india.hp.com] >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:13 PM >> > To: 'Bernie Volz (EUD)'; dhcwg@ietf.org >> > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 >> > >> > >> > Bernie, >> > This option format looks ok for me. We can include it. >> > Vijay >> > >> >> >> -- >> ____Vijay_Bhaskar_A_K____ >> ______Inet_Services______ >> ________HP_ISO___________ >> ______Ph:_2051424________ >> ____Telnet:_847_1424_____ >> ___Pager:_9624_371137____ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijay Bhaskar A K
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Jim Bound
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Vijayabhaskar A K
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 John Schnizlein
- Re: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Jim Bound
- RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6 Martin Stiemerling