Re: [mif] FW: Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 28/10/2011 20:07, Hui Deng a écrit :
> Just want to remind that there is on-going review in 6MAN for this
> draft.

Thanks for the pointer.

I have posted separately to 6man on this topic.

The question one raised on 6man is about coexistence with RA about
default route.  One is aware that a similar situation (alternate
mechanism DHCP-vs-RA for default route) appeared recently when DNS-in-RA
was proposed (DHCP existed doing DNS).  RFC6106 proposes to  do
DNS-in-RA but has a section explaining coexistence with DHCP about DNS
address - and gives the latter precedence over.

Additionally, the same issue may be raised about co-existence with
routing protocols.  Currently, the route-option draft says that
DHCP-route-option should not be used when dynamic routing protocols are
used (section 3.6 Limitations).  This is one particular way of building
co-existence.

In some cases this recommendation may be inappropriate - there may exist
cases where routing protocol software _and_ DHCP software should be used
on the same machine (e.g. use DHCP to get DNS address, and use OSPF to
do routing).  At that point it may be hard to prevent some particular
option of DHCP (route-option) being physically available on the machine.
  Accidentally misconfiguration may happen.

Another way would be to recommend that all data be in some list, and if
conflict arises precedence be given to some data over other.

This is of course debatable.

(In the past I have myself preferred to recommend to use mechanisms in
an alternative manner, rather than keeping prioritized lists.)

Alex

>
> thanks
>
> -Hui
>
>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:58:06 -0500 From: [e-mail] To:
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] CC:
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option
>>
>> This is precisely the question that I and Bernie Volz asked a year
>> or two back. Similarly when it was discussed to add a DNS option to
>> the IPv6 ND RA when the DNS option was already supported by DHCPv6.
>> The question was if the receiving node gets the same information
>> from two different sources, which information wins? What if one
>> information was fat-fingered at the SP provisioning system while
>> the other was not? We should look at the RFC that added the DNS
>> option to the RA and see if that RFC has a section regarding this
>> question and we could copy that guidance.
>>
>> Hemant
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:52 PM To: Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG
>> Mailing List Cc: [e-mail]; Bob Hinden;
>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: Review requested:
>> draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option
>>
>> What happens when both RA and DHCPv6 are configured?
>>
>> - Wes
>>
>> On 10/28/11 9:11 AM, "Brian Haberman" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All, The MIF WG is currently defining a DHCPv6 option for
>>> defining routes (including default routes) on client nodes.
>>> Please review the draft and provide any feedback you have.
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03
>>>
>>> Regards, Brian ----------------
>>> ---------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6
>>> working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative Requests:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail] Administrative Requests:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif