Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call
Warren Belfer <belfer@gullwing.eng.sun.com> Tue, 22 January 2002 21:28 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 QAA11276 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:28:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA13069 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:28:51 -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 PAA12161; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:56:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA12135 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:56:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10017 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:56:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09696 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:56:32 -0700 (MST)
Received: from gullwing.eng.sun.com (gullwing.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.111.80]) by engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id MAA20449 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:56:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gullwing (gullwing [129.146.111.80]) by gullwing.eng.sun.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0MKuUD06061 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200201222056.g0MKuUD06061@gullwing.eng.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:56:30 -0800
From: Warren Belfer <belfer@gullwing.eng.sun.com>
Reply-To: Warren Belfer <belfer@gullwing.eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-MD5: BMdQUZFPrPiPQ5NPv76XoQ==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.5 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc
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
>- Default routes > >A default routes option is unnecessary because of neighbor discovery/router >advertisements; is there some other reason to configure a host with default >routes? Yes; for security reasons; I (and others, I presume) do not want hosts responding to spurious routing information. My routers do not advertise routes (neither RIP nor router discovery) and my clients don't listen for them. warren Warren Belfer Lead Operations Engineer Internet Services Engineering Sun Microsystems, Inc. >- Static routes > >The static routes option has been discussed in the thread "static route >option for dhcpv6". The summary of the discussion is that a static routes >option might be useful to configure a host for tunnels. > >Please follow up with comments about whether we should define these two >options for DHCPv6. > >- Ralph > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Two options proposed during WG last call Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Warren Belfer
- Re: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Jim Bound
- RE: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last c… Bernie Volz (EUD)