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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 21 August 2013 16:28 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 0EB6511E8229 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:54 -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 l23o-SqqdOjf for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F0511E8110 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUhTqvw15vHw2nUCU8lzEynqg+LPfzvP+@postini.com; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:47 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 0862C1B82AB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:47 -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 022F819006E; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:47 -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; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:47 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "<sarikaya@ieee.org>" <sarikaya@ieee.org>, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
Thread-Index: AQHOnoeIs46aVPQ+eUigVLVDcoXDS5mgT00A
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:28:46 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525FDB5@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>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcfaT2c3j1aFS0Qf2bieRs_MH1xov7CjE0POhMnU75YuiA@mail.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: <E3199BF416934F4291CA9CD6B7B85226@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: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:28:54 -0000

On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't it not good to use DHCP options to establish routes? Remember what happened to

It's not possible to get IETF consensus on a DHCP option to deliver routes to clients.   I never said it was an inherently bad idea.   The reason I asked MIF to stop working on it was that the endless floggings were getting in the way of doing real work.   Really, preventing us from doing real work at all.

This is a completely different situation—DHCP relay agents _already_ snoop DHCP messages to set up routing between PE and CPE devices.