RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6
Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de> Thu, 17 January 2002 11:31 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 GAA11960 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:31:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA27495 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:31:51 -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 GAA26587; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA26567 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:13 -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 GAA11766 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:19:08 -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 g0HBJ4H57092; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:19:04 +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 87C48C052; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:18:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:18:35 +0100
From: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>, "'vijayak@india.hp.com'" <vijayak@india.hp.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
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
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
Hi, comments are inline. --On Mittwoch, Januar 16, 2002 13:17:09 -0600 "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> 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. Martin > 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 [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 > _______________________________________________ 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