Re: [mif] A request for Last Call on draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Can you provide software for this?  Please contact me off-list if yes.

Alex

Le 27/10/2011 14:17, Tomasz Mrugalski a écrit :
> Dear Chairs, Dear MIF,
>
> DHCPv6 Route Option draft has been presented in MIF several times. It
> was also presented in DHC WG and most* (see below) comments were addressed.
>
> I would also like to point out that this draft incorporates changes
> after Routing Directorate review, especially insightful comments from
> Joel Halpern about potential problems in networks that use dynamic
> routing. The lastest (-03) drafts contains clear warning that
> configuring routing over DHCPv6 in networks that use dynamic routing is
> a very bad idea (unless you exactly now what you are doing).
>
> * Authors chose to not incorporate some of the comments, raised by
> authors of dlro draft. There was a discussion in MIF list. Route option
> authors believe that:
>
> 1. defining separate option for just default route would be wrong. Let
> me qoute Ted Lemon (DHC chair): "It's always a bad idea to have two ways
> of specifying the same information—it creates a very clear potential for
> interoperability problems.". On a related note, I was involved in work
> on DS-Lite configuration over DHCPv6 and we initially had the same idea
> - define two options (address and FQDN) for the same thing. This
> approach was firmly rejected during IESG review. The message was clear:
> "choose one option".
>
> 2. conveying MAC (or link-layer in general) address is not necessary.
> There are other mechanisms like ND to obtain that information. Forcing
> this information on every client is just a waste of space as all clients
> that I know of can obtain this information on their own. They can do
> that in a timely manner, so raised argument about speed-up is not valid
> in my opinion. Another aspect is operational consideration. It would be
> very cumbersome to deploy and use. If operator changes interface in its
> router, DHCP configuration had to be updated and reconfigure procedure
> initiated. It could work in theory, but reconfigure is not commonly
> supported. DHCP server configuration would require knowledge of
> link-layer addresses of announced router(s). We could gain nothing by
> including MAC address, but get a lot of problems in the process.
> Therefore dhcpv6-route-option authors chose to not include link-layer
> information field.
>
> I would like to point out again that route-option proposal is
> extensible. It is designed as a minimal useful set of informations
> necessary for routing configuration. There are many more aspects of
> routing that may be useful in *some* cases. Therefore we made it clear
> that proposed options are extensible. If there are valid cases when
> extra information is useful, it should be defined as extension option.
> That's they recommendation I offer to anyone who says "can you add
> parameter X to route options? I really need it".
>
> To summarize this summary, we believe that mif-dhcpv6-route-option draft
> received enough reviews by experts in MIF, DHC and routing fields and is
> ready for WGLC. Therefore I'd like to ask MIF chairs to announce one.
>
> If we choose to have LC done in a timely fashion, we could discuss the
> results in Taipei. If that is the case, I would like to request time
> slot in Taipei meeting. I can't guess how many comments we will receive
> during WGLC, but I hope 10 or 15 minutes will be enough.
>
> Cheers,
> Tomek
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>