[mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04

["mif issue tracker" <[e-mail]>]

#7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
option-04

 Currently draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 specifies a way for the
 DHCPv6 Server to communicate a set of routes to the DHCPv6 Client.  This
 covers both specific routes and the particular case of default routes (a
 default route is meant when the RT_PREFIX option is absent, or
 alternatively by using 128 0 bits as RT_PREFIX).

 I think this is an issue.

 It's not good to have two different things to achieve the same
 functionality.

 Second, using default routes in the same option type of specific routes
 means that they'd share the same faith - if specific routes are wrongly
 configured in the same section of the config file, there is a risk that
 the default route is wrongly configured too.  Or, the default route is
 something of last resort, so it would be better to have it configured in
 a different place, communicated with a different ORO type.

 Third, if a single way of configuring default an specific routes with
 DHCP then this means that a bigger software implementation would be
 needed even for lightweight devices.  Or, lightweight devices only use a
 single route - the default route.

 I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes ORO.

-- 
----------------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  alexandru.petrescu@…  |      Owner:  Alexandru Petrescu
     Type:  enhancement           |     Status:  new
 Priority:  trivial               |  Milestone:
Component:  dhcpv6-route-option   |    Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call       |   Keywords:
----------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>