IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] IPv4 similarity in DefRoute-distinct-from-RouteOption (was: Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 26 September 2011 15:03 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 0C94A21F8CF3 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, 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 wWAk+KAd-Ktw for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513C621F8CB8 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKToCU/bORAXOzLV8umkTaPt/RmcieVrxr@postini.com; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:06:38 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 54CEB1B8470 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:06:37 -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 476AF190052; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:06:37 -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 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:06:37 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] IPv4 similarity in DefRoute-distinct-from-RouteOption (was: Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00)
Thread-Index: AQHMfE1JTf4LgNHYIE2Rdm+waETggJVgOIUA
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:06:36 +0000
Message-ID: <C2E73208-6CF6-4193-8ACB-AB3B34F390CB@nominum.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com> <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com> <4E6EAFC2.5060906@gmail.com> <4E6EDEA8.3080108@gmail.com> <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com> <4E6F825C.3080303@gmail.com> <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@nominum.com> <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com> <7061CEB8-8084-41D5-B31E-9F8E3B6C7091@nominum.com> <4E6F9B91.7010503@gmail.com> <B987CA14-569C-428C-8D8A-C97A0E42EF48@nominum.com> <4E6FA049.1040309@viagenie.ca> <4E803AE5.2000203@gmail.com> <4E807918.1020308@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E807918.1020308@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.89.227.148]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C2E732086CF641938ACBAB3B34F390CBnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] IPv4 similarity in DefRoute-distinct-from-RouteOption (was: Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00)
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:03:56 -0000

On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Nonetheless, the IPv4 software ended up with distinct options: one for
default route and one for classless routes.  It would be little
straightforward to port that IPv4 software to IPv6 if this latter had
only one option for both route and default route.

I personally consider it an unfortunate artifact of the way the classless static routes option evolved that we weren't able to have it support all routes, including the default route.   It's always a bad idea to have two ways of specifying the same information—it creates a very clear potential for interoperability problems.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email