IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 C136321F85D3 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 dIqPRbLccTY3 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2E521F85D2 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so681402obb.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=TXoB8rKEfg3UmVB/3j1/9OLpZ5BhLX1tgEfwWkI+adA=; b=WToG+7K1uzFCusvio9Y93K1q0UbhpGe4vP1PR8WppWhF8liaqarDLsHczHlTYW6GtW xtGV9QAPTEyUiJW3ZcCQVZQUgS5uqJXKfTZkcBv+JZ/pNpk7XIPihv3vEvdVxkNreLRF Sg8WTXkCSgJ4AyO5cV8/e3VObUou+hpSoLZne+mXZGH+5Wo0nlTqCkU4KkIbQPLMRI3k MwpmbOzq2YKoF3SJhlNqtXtZnq82OqUNErtKzsIV9h2gUfgkXI3/a0FezH/F5KTNnmgg y8/E4RehEjA/+IUR2dfMFDtharBe8CvQcw7rNrcXsRzvFmpMTC1eKdrbQ2l9FPIyQtbp xT4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=TXoB8rKEfg3UmVB/3j1/9OLpZ5BhLX1tgEfwWkI+adA=; b=h5GUj9ZUV9QKKzZlimke91qNLg49GxNwI/b/6guzlW/yamA+9qm/0tnt6/oxAQAJr7 ULK2G2atQNJVmf17zVEJBkbQn0jQ3Vsa89KDaXbmjdB/cG/oL+9T7gJr3winZmGWMgVf L6SnJzfqgJPE0EkzDKkhQAwAodyskdm4FH/ZjHBMIf+t6nuGwVxfCQ0/rInXemwnTSuW xYff9PDSObZXJrKeYBlcLwcvef3oqRWM/XSvD4sYQMNohs3uX71KUMPArSqK/xMefJwf yczf9qfAE/YN8zHxdRfj3oIszFgJQK16YPXd7vvlNpMotNWiT6EdQRcbJDyOAW0LxgxY C3qg==
Received: by 10.60.0.226 with SMTP id 2mr26218564oeh.18.1335252574649; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.0.226 with SMTP id 2mr26218545oeh.18.1335252574543; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.220.3 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F96550E.6020709@gmail.com>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@gmail.com> <4F72CD22.3080604@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RUUthiawKrmxjSNqzEbJcOLpHvDGb9XLtdiU-tfEYyw@mail.gmail.com> <4F744831.3070406@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4175@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <4F7453FC.3010502@gmail.com> <4F74546D.4060808@gmail.com> <72C42575-6BE2-4F27-B7F4-AA4539DA7EF9@lilacglade.org> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D43A1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <069301cd0dd2$5954df00$0bfe9d00$@tndh.net> <550B9F79-1642-469F-9ED3-96DA26AA40AB@lilacglade.org> <CAFFjW4hkGMm+mLSzpdWPcFLUcY3Hkyb+BDxh+5910YtfZxGD-A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+H2C9Zu3AS6aTxg1gebe0ZS2LXWmJjOPpbhaUHGZtXvF0UipQ@mail.gmail.com> <17F90720-AA1F-4F74-9598-2E5A5AC813CE@nttv6.net> <CAKD1Yr1s7SARfnowZV1uU=dDPi46-OjRQnM4otKsW3Y-k+84cw@mail.gmail.com> <F4D68CC2-27C5-4FB1-A11F-026E5261DB77@nttv6.net> <765F32AC-FBE3-4E8B-B698-1955C5601C2B@nominum.com> <4F96550E.6020709@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:29:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0d4ez4dogDk1gRvUHvWpoTBEg_4HatQQoa5oa3Yu9NFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1fbc664207404be67b7be"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbtrbEP3JmrEnoVbUBRQpQ/cwzzIULpvYKLA0d2FLf5RlOvFPpPuoic4OtY46EUd5p9TNDHKOzZ9uF3qQSNIKANX016UtAtoDkwOmAesOUjLKcuCM71worLAJ7V3EMK5RT+8/4
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
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, 24 Apr 2012 07:29:35 -0000

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 16:23, Alexandru Petrescu <
alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a comment about this, in the ADSL-type ISP case.
>
> The CPE box wouldn't be a Windows machine.  It would be unix, and it
> would be a router.  Thus, receiving RFC4191 specific routes from an RA
> from CPE+1 would leave it shrugging shoulders.
>

Why? The Linux Kernel supports RFC 4191, for example.


> If one wants to deliver specific routes to a CPE box one would't use
> RAs, because routers ignore much of info in them.
>

RFC 6204 specifies how IPv6 CPEs should listen to default routes in router
advertisements. The CPEs could listen to more-specific routes as well.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email