IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 31B1121F8862 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 9sfUvk5PurCN for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B221D21F86B2 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3xuKQ/t8oZhwoC8X/uDkM/DslkzDJLX@postini.com; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:52:14 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34011B8225 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F828190064; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:52:08 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
Thread-Index: AQHNDL2jhfr6t6vyVEeGR+93z5NinJZ/3M2AgAG+LoD//4t2bYAAgpgAgAAAh4CAABcYAP//i0r4gAC0mQD//8qt3gAjg1aA//+udoeAB9F/gIAA6lyA
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:52:07 +0000
Message-ID: <905A7517-B173-48FE-9E7A-DEDC709E7B83@nominum.com>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@gmail.com> <CAE97176.17DF4%wdec@cisco.com> <CANF0JMD_zfXGcfMy+rCOFXS1aCZ3RPHoRtkBeS8kDgOFcfQ8Fg@mail.gmail.com> <75D251D1-9828-4AFE-9BEF-B376E97133C7@nominum.com> <CANF0JMBbhrF0G=hSvcvyZAddAMW7oSO5KpzUmcJXCtwcnmyWOw@mail.gmail.com> <4A221CE5-ECF0-4E07-9329-E6BAA3F06A96@nominum.com> <4EC4AADB.8030803@piuha.net> <DD1241D5-B794-49C3-A3A2-4294248DDD10@gmail.com> <4F719186.3060507@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tSoDPcheriWdZEeKyhqpDANCP7Co0wVVqK5+mXc7e5A@mail.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> <550B9F79-1642-469F-9ED3-96DA26AA40AB@lilacglade.org> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D47A7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAAedzxpMtu_7jWuES5=EKK4oqsFsvt4tPpu0J4fy3Uz4-TEt6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxpMtu_7jWuES5=EKK4oqsFsvt4tPpu0J4fy3Uz4-TEt6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_905A7517B17348FE9E7ADEDC709E7B83nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:52:17 -0000

On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:53 PM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com<mailto:ek@google.com>> wrote:
Is RADIUS suitable for this?  At one point it was the general
non-client provisioning protocol of choice, I thought.  I have not
been following any of the evolving diameter work, but would a RADIUS
option suffice?

RADIUS could potentially be used for configuring unicast RAs on routers.   But since we don't have a clear description of the use cases we're trying to address, it's hard to evaluate.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email