Re: [mif] I-D draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03 published

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-09-14 02:31, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote, on 09/12/2011 09:24 PM:
>> On 2011-09-13 02:14, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-12 10:02, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>>> I don't see the use case. Can't the DHCP client on the very small
>>>>> platform just install the default route first, then whatever other
>>>>> routes it can support, and ignore the rest?
>>>> Do you think there exist a DHCP way to say: "install the default route
>>>> first and, if you have enough memory, install these specific routes"?
>>> Maybe it can be written in the draft. For example:
>>>
>>> Hosts MUST install routes in the order they are listed. If any routes
>>> cannot be installed due to resource constraints, routes MAY be dropped
>>> starting from the end.
>>>
>>> With this, the operator can put the default route first and obtain the
>>> behaviour you're describing.
>> That won't work if the host also gets a default route from RA. There's
>> nothing to stop DHCPv6 and RA being used simultaneously, for different
>> prefixes, and providing different default routers.
> 
> I'm not following you.
> - That's not a problem I'm trying to solve with the above proposal.
> - Even with a separate DHCP option dedicated to the default route, I don't see
> how the problem you mentioned gets solved.

I agree, it appears insoluble to me too. I think you should mention that
as an operational consideration.

   Brian