IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 24BC621F8A60 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 71nrLeHD0LUS for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9DC21F8B0A for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3RoOY0sIartf853OAnTil5eeuPj6AOH@postini.com; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:42 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F101B807D for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 535A1190064; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:48:41 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
Thread-Index: AQHNDL2jhfr6t6vyVEeGR+93z5NinJZ/3M2AgAG+LoD//4t2bYAAgpgAgAAAh4D//433iYAAfO+A//+Wf5A=
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:48:41 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4392@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@gmail.com> <CAE97176.17DF4%wdec@cisco.com> <CANF0JMD_zfXGcfMy+rCOFXS1aCZ3RPHoRtkBeS8kDgOFcfQ8Fg@mail.gmail.com> <75D251D1-9828-4AFE-9BEF-B376E97133C7@nominum.com> <CANF0JMBbhrF0G=hSvcvyZAddAMW7oSO5KpzUmcJXCtwcnmyWOw@mail.gmail.com> <4A221CE5-ECF0-4E07-9329-E6BAA3F06A96@nominum.com> <4EC4AADB.8030803@piuha.net> <DD1241D5-B794-49C3-A3A2-4294248DDD10@gmail.com> <4F719186.3060507@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tSoDPcheriWdZEeKyhqpDANCP7Co0wVVqK5+mXc7e5A@mail.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> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D42C2@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <4F745D91.2050608@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F745D91.2050608@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:48:50 -0000

>> I'm saying that route lifetime MUST be>= renewal time.
> That sounds logic.
I misspoke here: the lifetime must be >= the valid lifetime of the address for a statefully configured address, and > perhaps 2* the IRT for stateless.

> But what is that "route lifetime" - which protocol specifies it?  With
> which other protocol should this DHCP operation be compatible?

If the route is acquired through ND, its maintenance is up to ND, and isn't the DHCP server's problem, so there's no need to specify in this case.   Similarly with the router lifetime.   However, if by "router lifetime" you mean the lifetime of the ND result, that's really orthogonal, since the expectation is that this option will not be used in cases where routers are coming and going, and so it's not expected that ND on the router will fail; if it does, it's a service outage for that network, not an opportunity to discover a new route.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email