Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04
"mif issue tracker" <trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 01 August 2012 21:23 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 022D611E8377 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 MG+Pe-KWA4Vw for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5240B11E835C for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55620 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1SwgOU-0001lv-Qi; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:23:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: mif issue tracker <trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software
To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: mif
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:23:50 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7#comment:2
Message-ID: <081.5b55f2f41a2380ed43a0beaa73589e45@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 7
In-Reply-To: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:23:53 -0000
#7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- option-04 Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): > Second, using default routes in the same option type of specific routes > means that they'd share the same faith - if specific routes are wrongly > configured in the same section of the config file, there is a risk that > the default route is wrongly configured too. Or, the default route is > something of last resort, so it would be better to have it configured in > a different place, communicated with a different ORO type. Operationally it is always better for things to completely fail than to partially fail, because you see the problem immediately. In the case of a DHCP server configuration problem, it's hard to see why it would be easier to misconfigure a DHCP server when there is a single option than when there are two. > Third, if a single way of configuring default an specific routes with > DHCP then this means that a bigger software implementation would be > needed even for lightweight devices. Or, lightweight devices only use a > single route - the default route. Do you know of any specific devices that have this problem? > I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes ORO. I think this is a good way to solve the problem you have described, but I don't think the problem needs to be solved. I'd be interested to hear a specific, concrete use case for this. -- ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7#comment:2> mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
- [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default r… mif issue tracker
- Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from defau… mif issue tracker
- Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from defau… mif issue tracker
- Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from defau… mif issue tracker
- Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from defau… mif issue tracker
- Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from defau… mif issue tracker