Re: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6

Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin@6WIND.com> Wed, 15 September 2004 08:01 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10302; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:01:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7UZh-00026C-8m; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:51:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6o1M-0006Xx-O9 for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:25:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13125 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from proxy.ipv6.6wind.com ([194.250.197.211] helo=proxy.6wind.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6o61-0004LF-JD for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:30:07 -0400
Received: from eagle.6wind.com (givenchy.6wind.com [212.234.238.114]) by proxy.6wind.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC4372D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:25:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 6WIND.com (unknown [10.16.0.134]) by eagle.6wind.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40D61E1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:25:12 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4145754F.5060409@6WIND.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:24:15 +0200
From: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin@6WIND.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6
References: <chv0uv$2rmg$1@intranet.6wind.com>
In-Reply-To: <chv0uv$2rmg$1@intranet.6wind.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:51:29 -0400
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There is the case when DHCPv6 client is a router that performs prefix 
delegation, and does not run any routing protocol. This router would 
just need a default gateway. I think setting this gateway to the 
delegating router is enough but perhaps some scenario may require an 
explicit gateway ?

Jean-Mickael

Bernie Volz wrote:

> I agree. We do not need this option.
> 
> If someone can demonstrate a solid need for this (either a list of =
> default
> routers or list of static routes), we will consider this. But if you =
> have no
> solid use case, this should be outside the scope of DHCPv6.=20
> 
> In IPv4, there was no basic mechanism for a host to find router(s) and =
> to
> discover whether addresses are on or off link (ICMP messages were added
> later, but I think they've been little used). This is a basic feature of
> IPv6.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org]=20
>>On Behalf Of Robert Elz
>>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:00 PM
>>To: Anil Kumar Reddy
>>Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>    Date:        Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:32:22 +0530
>>    From:        "Anil Kumar Reddy" <sakreddy@india.hp.com>
>>    Message-ID:  <200409101402.TAA29984@iconsrv6.india.hp.com>
>>=20
>>  | 	I feel, having a router configuration option (similar to=20
>>  | 	DNS, SIP, NIS) would help the client's network connectivity=20
>>  | 	in the absence of RA.
>>=20
>>As a rationale, that's useless.   If there are no RAs, there are no
>>routers, RAs in v6 aren't optional.
>>=20
>>But, it might be perhaps useful to be able to configure a=20
>>particular router on a net with several - and perhaps=20
>>different routers for different hosts, which is something=20
>>that RAs cannot achieve, so the option shouldn't necessarily=20
>>simply be discarded as completely useless.
>>=20
>>Whether the benefit in allowing this is worth the extra=20
>>complexity I'm not sure I'd like to take a position on at the minute.
>>=20
>>kre
>>=20
>>=20
>>_______________________________________________
>>dhcwg mailing list
>>dhcwg@ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>=20
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

-- 

Jean-Mickael GUERIN
Tel : +33 1 39 30 92 33
Web site : www.6wind.com


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg