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

[Tomasz Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

On 11.09.2011 00:03, [e-mail] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces
> Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : DHCPv6 Route Options
> 	Author(s)       : Wojciech Dec
>                           Tomasz Mrugalski
>                           Tao Sun
>                           Behcet Sarikaya
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 14
> 	Date            : 2011-09-10
> 
> This document describes DHCPv6 Route Options for provisioning IPv6 
> routes on DHCPv6 client nodes.  This is expected to improve the 
> ability of an operator to configure and influence a nodes'
> ability to pick an appropriate route to a destination when this node
> is multi- homed and where other means of route configuration may be 
> impractical.
Dear MIF and DHC groups,

This draft was presented in DHC WG in Quebec. While the primary area of
review was from DHCP protocol perspective, there were quite a few
insightful comments received related to other aspects. I was also
presented again in MIF WG.

After a long discussion we reached consensus and solved concerns raised
during review by Routing Directorate.

Authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Marcin Siodelski and Alexandru
Petrescu for their insightful comments and through review.

Significant changes since -03 version:
- added a route lifetime field. This provides a way to age and expire a
route
- route lifetime can be used to revoke a route during renewal
- IA_RT prefix removed. It was only a container option, so this removal
does not change the way this option works
- clarified that default route may be configured with this mechanism
- provided a way to configure default route in bandwidth-constrained
networks
- clarified that this mechanism may be used on routers (e.g. residential
gateways)
- added a way to configure on-link routes
- added a limitation section pointing out that using this mechanism in
networks that do dynamic routing is usually a bad idea

The only comment that we chose not to implement is a suggestion to
include MAC address information. We believe that would be wrong for
number of reasons. If reviewers still thinks this is useful, we would
like to point out a possible solution. As proposed options are designed
to be extensible, reviewers who proposed adding MAC address can simply
define a suboption that will provide necessary information in cases,
where such information cannot be obtained in the usual way. Such
approach is also better, because in most cases this information is not
needed and may even be harmful. This kind of information should be
requested only in those limited cases, where it is really needed. If
proponents choose to define such extensions, our belief is that extra
explanation why such information is needed would be very useful to
understand their use case.

There are no outstanding issues with this draft. This draft has been
reviewed by Routing Directorate, by DHC WG and was presented several
times in MIF meetings and in DHC meeting. As one of the authors (and I
believe I speak on behalf of all authors) I think this draft is ready
for last call. Therefore I would like to ask MIF chairs to announce WGLC.

Of course any additional comments are more than welcome.

Cheers,
Tomek Mrugalski