IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Conflict between RA and DHCP in MIF case

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Mon, 14 November 2011 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440AC21F8546 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xvRHA2qXgw0j for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from syd-srv03.ezyreg.com (syd-srv03.ezyreg.com [117.58.251.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6329E1F0C8B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net ([150.101.127.187] helo=[192.168.1.202]) by syd-srv03.ezyreg.com with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kauer@biplane.com.au>) id 1RPmaE-0006Lf-DA for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:47:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Conflict between RA and DHCP in MIF case
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: IETF IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AD6BF089-0E02-4E2E-87DF-6F0B848189A4@employees.org>
References: <CANF0JMCo8ZnXtY7DKcoeGApYKu0Enq=O-DFvSmrmkjpSUWzB9g@mail.gmail.com> <402398CF-7F7C-4B8B-91CE-6EDE54B6C4CC@employees.org> <1321236631.2514.48.camel@karl> <AD6BF089-0E02-4E2E-87DF-6F0B848189A4@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-dBD+3PSBkGldJAphgaQ5"
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:47:39 +1100
Message-ID: <1321238859.2514.73.camel@karl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - syd-srv03.ezyreg.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - biplane.com.au
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:47:44 -0000

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:27 +0800, Ole Troan wrote:
> can you give examples of what information cannot be merged?
> certainly a default router list can be merged...

If one source says that the domain search list is "a.com b.com c.com"
and another source says it is "c.com a.com b.com", how can you merge the
search lists?

Or if one source says that the default route is via IP address 1, and
the other source says that the default route is via IP address 2, which
IP address are you supposed to use as your default route? Sure, you can
set up two default routes - but when a packet turns up for which you
have no more specific route, which IP address will you send it to?
Something has to choose, using some criterion or other.

Some things cannot be merged - that's what "conflict" means.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/                   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status