RE: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6

"Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com> Sat, 22 May 2004 04:06 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24781; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNe6-0006nY-NG; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:58:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRNRW-0004uy-Bu for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:45:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23862 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:44:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRNRR-0005kL-Vk for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:44:59 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNQL-0005WE-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:43:50 -0400
Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRNO9-0005K8-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:41:33 -0400
Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5FC5E; Fri, 21 May 2004 23:41:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 21 May 2004 23:41:33 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:41:28 -0400
Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B0644C135@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
Thread-Index: AcQ/E+lNAekpCfYKScyQGgasN5GWaAAlcsowAAE3b/A=
From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
To: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>, "Cristian Cadar" <Cristian.Cadar@netlab.nec.de>, <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 May 2004 03:41:33.0065 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACE33F90:01C43FAE]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

whoops... "I cannot see any reason........." is what was meant in last
sentence. 
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bound, Jim
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 11:08 PM
> To: Cristian Cadar; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
> 
> Christian,
> 
> I have been down this patha and I cannot see a good case for 
> this to be in DHCPv6.  I concur with Eric and Bernie.  The 
> entire conversion of routes on a link should come from ND RA. 
>  Once the edge link routers have the prefixes it is automatic 
> for the hosts.  I can see any good reason to add state to the 
> IPv6 network architecture for route propogation?  
> 
> thanks
> /jim 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of 
> > Cristian Cadar
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:50 AM
> > To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> > Subject: [dhcwg] Deafult Router information for DHCPv6
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I know that this issue was already discussed on the list but I ran 
> > into a problem which I would like to clarify here.
> > Seemingly the only way for getting the default router 
> information is 
> > to make use of the RA. So when I'm using
> > dhcpv6 and want get the default router information is it a 
> MUST to use 
> > the RA for this pourpose? I could not find any statement in 
> any of the 
> > RFC/drafts saying that.
> > I mean for the time being I cannot see any other possibility.
> > There might be scenarios where the use of RA is not desired and 
> > prefering to have a dhcpv6 option carrying this information 
> along. If 
> > the use of RA is not a MUST I think we need a new option.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Cristian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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