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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

> I agree that you don't do something just because it was done in IPv4, but
> your response is exactly the same as your complaint about the public
> lynching. Just because your local network is not using this mechanism is no
>reason to deny others from having it for theirs.

Lynching was a poor choice of words.   In any case, my point is that if you have a real need for this functionality on your network, you should be able to articulate that in a convincing way, and there should be some reason why DHCPv6 is a better solution than RA.   It shouldn't be the case that you'd just rather use DHCPv6.

> people do operate VPNs with split tunneling, and
> need a way to push the internal routes to the client. The operational pain
> will occur when there is no option 121 for those networks that use it for
> IPv4. The alternative is what I am doing; manually running a static route
> script every time the vpn goes up and another when it goes down to pull them
> back out.

What's missing from this description is "RA doesn't work well in this situation because..."

> Widespread deployment requires that people have the tools they want to use
> for managing their local network.

Widespread deployment requires that people have tools that work well to manage their local network.  If the tools that we have given them thus far do not work well, it should be easy to say why.   It's not the IETF's job, nor should it be, to give them specific tools just because those are the ones they want, any more than the building code should allow you to use deck screws in a shear wall just because you happen to prefer an impact driver to a nail gun.