IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 26 June 2013 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C1B11E81A3 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 wUJJm6u8WWwE for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7F811E81A4 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from takifugu.mtcc.com (takifugu.mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r5Q8oaBt018323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:50:36 -0700
Message-ID: <51CAAB5B.5060105@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:50:35 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
References: <878v1yqhje.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <020301ce71e1$da38d120$8eaa7360$@comcast.net> <87wqphonkv.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1A4D24AC-445C-422A-B2C8-D9C307347BA0@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <1A4D24AC-445C-422A-B2C8-D9C307347BA0@townsley.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=709; t=1372236636; x=1373100636; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[homenet]=20Configuration=20must=20not= 20be=20carried=20by=20the=20routing=20protocol |Sender:=20 |To:=20Mark=20Townsley=20<mark@townsley.net> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20 format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=SU2U5Gb2pCOXl0aHaFx8wgnM4UwVTMi72pviGeGVXsU=; b=X63NmJmBHIf/AjGQfaKfEgHLjM1ZKDH39BnZ0dbAfQsdqCj1DQnMutnUJG xnIeHewaETRYf+KPFmv9/chQGA2uhnIXItU/ajhtRcDI1/VMiP429UvskcQ7 NhZicWbOBzFo50Qo/nsFaSmS8SFWQrq9FIrDXnXba/d00td1dKEh8=;
Authentication-Results: mtcc.com; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.com
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:50:41 -0000

On 06/26/2013 01:08 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:03 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
>>> Just a comment ...
>>> You say " There is an IETF standard configuration protocol, and that's
>>> DHCPv6."
>>
>>> Actually, the IETF has a number of configuration protocol standards, not
>>> just DHCPv6.
>
> Not to mention "HC" stands for "Host Configuration" not "Router Configuration."
>
> RFC 2131 is very clear,
> "   DHCP is not intended for use in configuring routers."
> That explicit statement went away in RFC 3315, though the terminology section makes it very clear that a Host is not a Router.
>

The implication being that dhcp prefix delegation is bogus?

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email