Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 73EAD21F8A35 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 69Lh1eUMSREN for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC1F21F87D9 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p8DIq2wg031706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:52:02 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8DIq1ML015273; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:52:02 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.183]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p8DIpwA6002252; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:52:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4E6FA64E.7020801@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:51:58 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com> <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com> <4E6EAFC2.5060906@gmail.com> <4E6EDEA8.3080108@gmail.com> <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com> <4E6F825C.3080303@gmail.com> <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@nominum.com> <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com> <7061CEB8-8084-41D5-B31E-9F8E3B6C7091@nominum.com> <4E6F9B91.7010503@gmail.com> <B987CA14-569C-428C-8D8A-C97A0E42EF48@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <B987CA14-569C-428C-8D8A-C97A0E42EF48@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
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: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:49:57 -0000

Le 13/09/2011 20:22, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> I find it to be a stretch to link the lifetime of addresses to
>> lifetime of routes in the routing table.
>
> Could you please clearly articulate a use case where this option is
> necessary, and the existing proposed option is not adequate? Please
> do not mention operating system data structures. Please do not say
> "I find it to be the case that.." Without a use case, I just don't
> see the point in discussing this further.

What do you mean by "use case" so I can better detail how this default 
route option is necessary, thanks.

The existing proposed option does not accommodate several use-cases.

One particular case is a 3G+ operator using terminals whose default
routes are under the form "0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 hso0" remark no address for
next hop, but an interface name (existing option does not communicate
interface names).  3G is mentioned as a use case in
draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03 yet I believe 3G+ is not covered.
  Can I thus suggest that existing option is not adequate?

With respect to lifetimes: if you do not agree discussing lifetimes now
then you may agree discussing lifetimes when implementation feedback of
existing option is out.  I suppose there is currently no implementation
of the existing option, whereas implementation of
draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00 does exist, as reflected in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01166.html

Alex