IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 05 April 2012 10:42 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 B83B621F86C7 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 RYRdjRQhWGjS for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8339721F86AF for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT313BOGgvMW464rVT5nrhA7cr0kV2Rol@postini.com; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:42:13 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 DB68F1B8263 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (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 CB9A1190064; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:42:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:42:05 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
Thread-Index: AQHNDL2jhfr6t6vyVEeGR+93z5NinJZ/3M2AgAG+LoD//4t2bYAAgpgAgAAAh4CAABcYAP//i0r4gAC0mQD//8qt3gB1uXCAAAojCT4ATUl3AAAWVyMTABwkMoAAMYTdAAAHmVmAAARG8IAAE/zpAAAHQK8A
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:42:05 +0000
Message-ID: <E48A66BE-47CF-4F84-8FB9-E1194ECD21F9@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> <4F7D4650.7040108@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7D4650.7040108@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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <515EECDDD34F744BA7A51C5C1ED233EC@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:42:14 -0000

On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
 wrote:
> 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.

But *why*?   Please stop talking about feelings.   Please say why. 

For example, if using DHCPv6 instead of RA reduces operational complexity and expense, you should be able to say *why* it does so.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email