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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 22:18 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 E991711E8089 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.173, 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 kJ+PAoHmf5Yx for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A995D11E8082 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so1099338fxd.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:20:37 -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:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3X0gZdu6SZhpnKjelD1LnITiabzDjkYbrjHvBOAdR4o=; b=IdVR1fbZm8SuvTORSOBVaD3lMPh2tIShLNNy43wdJ7lyRyZeH5812vVwxLNx6iVxIy +tv29Cepc7exRo5E0Uovsy0QyMySUhlMV/W8f8+jT3BRjzRD3G288QXgbP5QoPSHL1kh /MX9qOSHrFL+ALbjhq1BlP9pYTg5Mnl4tX8t0=
Received: by 10.223.92.148 with SMTP id r20mr129963fam.94.1315952423662; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:20:23 -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 d22sm1592730fak.10.2011.09.13.15.20.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6FD720.6030300@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:20:16 +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: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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> <4E6FC26C.3020304@gmail.com> <A98471C4-145F-4D69-990B-981577A6135D@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A98471C4-145F-4D69-990B-981577A6135D@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
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 22:18:34 -0000

Le 13/09/2011 23:27, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> The existing implementation of draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00 does
>> not handle renewal. We're facing too many options about it: should
>> it RENEW? Should it send an RS as well? This is up to debate. But
>> it is related only to the default route, not the other routes.
>
> That doesn't even make sense. Why does a default route need a
> lifetime, but the other routes don't?

Because, most if not all IPv6 implementations come with a mandatory ND
implementation.  That has the notion of "default router".  That default
router has a mandatory lifetime field.  There can be several routers on
a link acting as a "default router" and their lifetime.

RFC4861 syas "The Router Lifetime applies only to the router's
usefulness as a default router; it does not apply to information
contained in other message fields or options.  Options that need [...]"
  in sync with lifetimes communicated by ospf.

> Why do we need a default route option at all?

Because it is more important than the specific routes.  It must work
when everything else fails.

Must be distinguishable when several present; must be reliably renewed
even though no global address assigned with DHCP; must be in sync
with what RA does. Must tell the number of hops between Client the gw
address.  Etc.

If some of these aspects fail the Client without a default route may be
unreachable by arbitrary nodes trying to ICMP diagnose it.

On another hand, a specific route incompletely specified may not do that
much harm to Client.

> It doesn't look like the use case you've proposed justifies this
> option.

Hmmm...

I am not sure whether you're saying that these aspects (interface name
resolution, number of hops, sync with ND/rt protocols) are necessary for
all other specific routes as well.  Or you're saying simply that the
currrrent draft-mif is ok as it is with its way of being extended.

Alex

>