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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 13 September 2011 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD5621F8B76 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.594
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQfLnPR2Ti-S for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CCD21F8B64 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKTm+r8H9RLrfBaf/xIaPCfxDMNbmN/; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:16:02 PDT
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DEBF8020 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DFBF190061; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:15:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:15:56 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
Thread-Index: AcxxClosDL9zuhm1Q+CTqXShqzwWxAAw84cAAAfxtgAABv0IAAARg+mAAAbg3wAAAWjoAAAA9R+AAAEFqoAAAF3hgAAAk6wAAAEF9gAAANZHAA==
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:15:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_82337D110A394A10AA0E1E81B09DBA4Fnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:13:56 -0000

On Sep 13, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
With respect to lifetimes: if you do not agree discussing lifetimes now
then you may agree discussing lifetimes when implementation feedback of
existing option is out.  I suppose there is currently no implementation
of the existing option, whereas implementation of
draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00 does exist, as reflected in

How does the existing implementation handle renewal?

What do you mean by "use case" so I can better detail how this default route option is necessary, thanks.

The 3G+ scenario is the first use case you've presented, so thanks for that.

If interface names are in fact required, that's interesting.   I really don't understand how that could work, though, since the DHCP server has no way to know what the client operating system is calling the interface.

Also, I'm a bit confused by the idea of an interface route with no router address in IPv6.   I will admit to being something of a tyro when it comes to these things, but I don't understand how that would work.   Does the client simply multicast every packet?   Is there an RFC or draft that documents how this works?