RE: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6

Anil - the scenario you describe falls, I think, in the class
of scenarios kre described:

>But, it might be perhaps useful to be able to configure a particular
>router on a net with several - and perhaps different routers for
>different hosts, which is something that RAs cannot achieve, so the
>option shouldn't necessarily simply be discarded as completely useless.

Do we have any reason to believe, at this point, that load balancing
through explicit default router assignment will be used in practice?

- Ralph

At 12:10 PM 9/15/2004 +0530, Anil Kumar Reddy wrote:

>Thanks for your responses. Sorry for the delay in my response.
>
>I have a question :
>Take a case of load balancing, where two routers present and
>  we want to manage/configure few set of hosts (address range)
>  to use one router and others to use a different one (two
>  paths), how do we achieve this using RAs ?
>
>--
>Thanks,
>Anil
>
>: -----Original Message-----
>: From: Bernie Volz [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
>: Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 7:36 PM
>: To: 'Robert Elz'; 'Anil Kumar Reddy'
>: Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
>: Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Router option, in DHCPv6
>:
>: 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.
>:
>: 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] 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
>: >
>: >
>: >     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>
>: >
>: >   |         I feel, having a router configuration option
>: (similar to
>: >   |         DNS, SIP, NIS) would help the client's network
>: connectivity
>: >   |         in the absence of RA.
>: >
>: > As a rationale, that's useless.   If there are no RAs, there are no
>: > routers, RAs in v6 aren't optional.
>: >
>: > But, it might be perhaps useful to be able to configure a
>: particular
>: > router on a net with several - and perhaps different routers for
>: > different hosts, which is something that RAs cannot achieve, so the
>: > option shouldn't necessarily simply be discarded as completely
>: > useless.
>: >
>: > Whether the benefit in allowing this is worth the extra
>: complexity I'm
>: > not sure I'd like to take a position on at the minute.
>: >
>: > kre
>: >
>: >
>: > _______________________________________________
>: > 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