RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

Martin Stiemerling <> Thu, 17 January 2002 11:31 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11960 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:31:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA27495 for; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:31:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA26587; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA26567 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11766 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0HBJ4H57092; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:19:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elgar ( []) by (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 87C48C052; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:18:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:18:35 +0100
From: Martin Stiemerling <>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <>, "''" <>,
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Message-ID: <10620000.1011266315@elgar>
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CD99@EAMBUNT705>
References: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CD99@EAMBUNT705>
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
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


comments are inline.

--On Mittwoch, Januar 16, 2002 13:17:09 -0600 "Bernie Volz (EUD)" 
<> wrote:

> 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

I'm not sure, too. But I would be happy if Vijay could make a small picture 
with the scenario his thinking of to get a clear view.

> 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?

I do the IPv6 deployment for a complete site, and I haven't encounter such 
a situation where a host needs a static route. But I'm willing to learn.

> 2. Wait until someone has a clear case of needing it and have it defined
> in some future document.

I prefer this way.


> 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
> Bernie,
> This option format looks ok for me. We can include it.
> Vijay

dhcwg mailing list