[dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] Interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefRouter/Src-basedRoute configuration to Client?
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 26 March 2013 17:40 UTC
Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 5225C21F8BDE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 xtcc7KDfr1Qr for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93C421F8BBC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1673; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1364319650; x=1365529250; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LSk+nXi8Z7w2/hP1KqHvOchkM1ygXGKZZ36cNwgls80=; b=f6ftDX33ATHXFzG+vIzoRg458qKxSIclPQQh15oT8ujzyINs9ubME4nw 2ugedqm540LrT3vgjcR4N90sKEcebkmFl5f/4VNz/1uE/w7riMKbNcvkl QZGjcGLzhK7FFcC/1lxTIVXqsh/pijumYNxEt9V5LqgJnXdXqMkg2NZGN c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFANTcUVGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABDxAWBBhZtPYIfAQEBBAEBATc0FwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAcBAQUDAgQTCIgMDLEJj3IEgk6MEyYSBoJZYQOnboFUgTaCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,913,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="191718086"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2013 17:40:50 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2QHeoOx021963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:40:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:40:49 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefRouter/Src-basedRoute configuration to Client?
Thread-Index: AQHOKjyZ+pj/pqSGEEy03Ze6s9V0b5i4PSpw
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:40:49 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E184C4747@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <5151C83B.1010203@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5151C83B.1010203@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.65.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] Interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefRouter/Src-basedRoute configuration to Client?
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:40:51 -0000
This is an FYI. If you have opinions, please comment on the v6ops mailing list. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:10 PM To: v6ops@ietf.org Subject: [v6ops] Interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefRouter/Src-basedRoute configuration to Client? Dear participants to V6OPS, Is there an interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefRouter/Src-basedRoute configuration to Client? As one may remember, there was much discussion in several groups about DHCPv6 delivering routing information to Clients: generic routes, default routers' addresses and routes keyed by source address. The MIF WG has produced a document draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05 but it is recently dropped from the MIF Charter to allow group to re-focus on a MIF topic. An individual proposal about DHCPv6 Default Routers List that I co-author is in draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-02.txt which takes on an earlier draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router In the DHCWG there was recently discussion about IEEE 802.11ai needing to configure DefaultRouters by using link-layer messaging, or alternatively DHCP. With a purpose to realize fast configuration in crowded hotspot areas for highly mobile STAs. Also in DHCWG there was discussion about the src-based routes being communicated to Client with DHCPv6. Is there an interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefRouter/Src-basedRoute configuration to Client? Alex _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
- [dhcwg] FW: [v6ops] Interest in DHCPv6 Route/DefR… Bernie Volz (volz)