[mif] Possible requirements for DRLO that Route-Option does not satisfy
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr> Fri, 28 October 2011 14:03 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr>
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 3AB9E21F8B7C for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hwlDqwkwYE7S for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:03:50 -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 376A621F8B76 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:03:50 -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 p9SE3nge001214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:03:49 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9SE3m39020777 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:03:49 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p9SE3lqZ019385 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:03:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4EAAB644.2050400@cea.fr>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:03:48 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr>
Organization: CEA
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms070802050702060602000601"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:14:49 -0700
Subject: [mif] Possible requirements for DRLO that Route-Option does not satisfy
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:03:51 -0000
Possible requirements for DRLO that Route-Option does not satisfy: In memory- and bandwidth-constrained environments there are strong requirements to: - use only one software implementation (DHCP or ND but not both); or, when needing to solve the MAC address, route-option relies on ND. - avoid unnecessary chatter (avoid NS-NA); route-option requires the use of NS-NA in addition to DHCP, for a default route to solve its MAC address. - send as little control data as possible; route-option communicates more data than necessary (many unneeded separation fields) - communicate _only_ the default route and no other route; route-option sends too much data which necessary only in the generic route case, unnecessary for the default route (e.g. metrics). Yours, Alex
- [mif] Possible requirements for DRLO that Route-O… Alexandru Petrescu