IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 05 April 2012 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9998911E8079 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 1e4LIZ9MM7IJ for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BE721F85EF for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by werb10 with SMTP id b10so779564wer.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5BXjkxdLKuJ08cKEEkiuVqJoudDxCfQkAIJPfYbyUoY=; b=K1vggZbKvYTZcrMqrbm9WOaXCoefc2h8iKReh6MMjDDJVliZyJPa4jBFHGHXk69ldI Wtgq73rnOlyUvdiv6G4t4+SWiFT2yAJVbUx5kZGulXI6AfNrbJVFOb2Hq0pZaWwKk80a e0nhpQqs7jTUieTrBOcuslFsl3/AgWCLEeeflb5EWtiPOj9oIYMjABsxbH2mkzyeI9pU FnFvJ4oR5pjFI2a8StfVHjGzEVP7EspdACC6+UxAx3IYwZp7OEVRmhBkuRY7ZWPJJ20C AvqnHbneEIh/6WNkcRX6TmBqeRdO16uuxg0stj+IWIaK5JUJjZS7qoHKOcGnM5JqIwAW N7ow==
Received: by 10.180.107.162 with SMTP id hd2mr10199628wib.8.1333610074128; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.69] (host-2-102-217-51.as13285.net. [2.102.217.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm11319276wia.11.2012.04.05.00.14.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F7D4650.7040108@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:14:24 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@gmail.com> <4F72CD22.3080604@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RUUthiawKrmxjSNqzEbJcOLpHvDGb9XLtdiU-tfEYyw@mail.gmail.com>, <4F744831.3070406@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4175@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <4F7453FC.3010502@gmail.com> <4F74546D.4060808@gmail.com>, <72C42575-6BE2-4F27-B7F4-AA4539DA7EF9@lilacglade.org> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D43A1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <069301cd0dd2$5954df00$0bfe9d00$@tndh.net> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D45F6@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> , <075201cd0f8e$94cb81 7 0$be628450$@tndh.net> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D5C5B@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <00c301cd10ec$46f39ff0$d4dadfd0$@tndh.net> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D608D@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <01a601cd11b6$34522090$9cf661b0$@tndh.net> <3B8389FE-8FE4-4AC8-B1F2-D2FD924EAC8A@nominum.com> <00a501cd129a$ace0f560$06a2e020$@tndh.net> <E527F5B8-C34F-4147-9D33-371E41057B1B@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <E527F5B8-C34F-4147-9D33-371E41057B1B@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:14:35 -0000

On 2012-04-04 22:42, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Instead of using a lot of analogies and guilt trips, why don't you just tell us what your use case is, Tony?   I'm sorry if you feel like you're not being heard here, but I really do hear you.   I just don't agree.   Maybe others here do, but even if they do, it's not going to help us to make forward progress.

My understanding is that IT departments who currently manage layer 3
aspects of hosts via whatever database tool configures their DHCP[v6]
servers wish to continue doing so, rather than having to use a
different (or updated) tool to configure their RAs. The reason of
course is to reduce operational complexity and expense.

Access providers who already use RADIUS to configure users might
prefer that approach, for exactly the same reason.

This has felt for a long time like a case where we *cannot* reasonably
apply the principle advocated in RFC 1958: "If there are several ways
of doing the same thing, choose one."

  Brian (editor of RFC 1958)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email