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

[Tomasz Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

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
route-option-03.

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,
Tomek