Re: [mif] I-D draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03 published

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 12/09/2011 15:12, Simon Perreault a écrit :
> On 2011-09-11 06:36, maximilien mouton wrote:
>> I thus think that a client should be able to require only a
>> default route (and no other route).
>
> Why? What's the use case?

CErtainly there are exist use cases for machines using only default
route, and no other route.  Typically with single-interfaced Hosts.

One particular example is the typical office desktop PCs, which are
typically leafs to the Internet, and only browse web; the net appliances.

Another is typical PDA, cellphone, smartphone which only has a default
route and no specific route to its neighbors (operator typically opposes
this, because needs to charge uniformly).

> Are you working with hosts that do not have a generic routing table
> and only support a single default route?

I am not sure about the term generic routing table... I think most Hosts
which support routes, support several of them, and several of default
routes.

But, one may think about the very small platforms which have very little
memory and may hold a very limited number of routes... in these cases
the default route is the one kind of route which allows it to reach the
widest number of other Hosts in the Internet (every other non-default
but specific route helps it reach a smaller number of Hosts).

What do you think?

Alex

>
> Simon