Re: [mif] Option size for lifetimed default route: route-option vs drlo

Tomasz Mrugalski <> Fri, 28 October 2011 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5316011E808C for <>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zjDsOdR3qkPO for <>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5511E8089 for <>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so4918956wyh.31 for <>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-tagtoolbar-keys:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DHl4ydiR19aX8/Jp8uJQDowGOSoujFkwrX5+00tVfm0=; b=uMaWJn4u3+RdswUyXRetjl967+QabbwjEmlKF+dnHGmcH3OrrATo5fy5iPGSZNRicQ U7lt4rLBudS4zOPrAZu4mwl1fCOjfk5DoYqMwE3o1IiVCH2drCJlBSuOclt233PuVfAW PbnQM4Q7oZjHdcSKwwSA4gdW6uoWfUR74nSns=
Received: by with SMTP id gb17mr5001857wbb.24.1319824267182; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id a27sm16827530wbp.16.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:51:07 +0200
From: Tomasz Mrugalski <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20111028195107440
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [mif] Option size for lifetimed default route: route-option vs drlo
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:51:09 -0000

On 28.10.2011 16:03, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> DHCP to communicate a default route with lifetime, to Client:
> - with route-option, the option size is: 48bytes.
Not true. You can convey default route information using just NEXT_HOP
option, which is 20 octets actually. Please read section 3.1, paragraphs
2 and 3 (discussion about bandwidth limited cases) and section 4.1 of

I'd like to remind you that this paragraph was added specifically to
address your concerns about bandwidth limitations.

> - with drlo, the option size is: 28bytes.
I take your word for it. I read that draft a long a ago.

As you see, route-option is more flexible (supports specific routes and
a default route) and it can be more efficient if you need it.

While I acknowledge that your specific use case exists, you must also
acknowledge that not every use case is exactly like yours. I see that
you are trying to find one specific very narrow metric and use that to
point out that one solution is better than another. Please don't assume
that if you need something, everyone else needs it as well.

Have a nice weekend,