Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 05A2E11E80C9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.975
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.624, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 crKOWnV9V5wE for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34CD11E80C7 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so892387wwf.13 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8Q251dhKveuCHrVYLpapQWFGyEPej/9uVEnOgIm45oc=; b=hOXXR8ijmaZIuQP2y4GcCUpr7d+bDIR7jHMXH4j62Q/+tJQqT5JFryC37fhWqisUKr CwQYloK6OP3j+KDHc5xLL79tuvmhO1/35XO7YPqX0dsp/ce2h3mIEM/vRcGJiHNELU4l EfcyUsiOge+5o0If7kcxfTzHsmWLnxQLFwV3U=
Received: by 10.216.163.83 with SMTP id z61mr1431584wek.58.1315946352319; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bur91-3-82-239-213-32.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.213.32]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ev5sm1727901wbb.11.2011.09.13.13.39.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6FBF69.2020705@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:39:05 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mif@ietf.org
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> <4E6FA64E.7020801@gmail.com> <82337D11-0A39-4A10-AA0E-1E81B09DBA4F@nominum.com> <4E6FACF6.5000007@viagenie.ca> <460A90E1-7A38-484E-BA55-62F080478DB3@nominum.com> <4E6FB304.1060703@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4E6FB304.1060703@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [mif] 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: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:37:07 -0000

Le 13/09/2011 21:46, Simon Perreault a écrit :
> Ted Lemon wrote, on 09/13/2011 03:41 PM:
>> On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> I'm guessing that's a point-to-point interface. So you don't need
>>> the next hop's L2 address. You just send it down the tube and it
>>> gets at the other end. The classic example is PPP.
>>
>> Okay, that sort of makes sense, but it seems like it's impossible
>> for the DHCP server to know what that interface is called, and easy
>> to just have the client set up the routing since it knows what it's
>> doing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> In any case it's still possible to describe a P-t-P route using the
> remote endpoint's IP address instead of the interface name or index.

Except that when that default route is given by the DHCP Server this
latter may not know the remote endpoint's IP address.  It may be for
this reason why currently is a "0.0.0.0"; and also because it changes
with every new attachement which does not involve a new DHCP exchange.

One alternative could be to specify that the Client adds that default
route on the interface on which it received the Advertise.  Without this
clarification the Client does not know what to do with a "0.0.0.0
0.0.0.0" default route received in a DHCP message.

There may exist other alternatives.

But spec should say what the Client should do about a "0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0"
default route otherwise it can't insert it in its forwarding information
base.

Alex



  So IMHO the 3G use
> case is supported by the current draft.
>
> Simon