IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 13:03 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 8AB5821F8993 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, 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 NQdy5-XrELn5 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9DE21F8992 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhj6 with SMTP id hj6so29919wib.13 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kc2W+/0aYv12J9qD7RByz2E8h4VXpkpLc7flMpwcXNA=; b=ND05+tUa+DkfeEKZ2aZo+EwA9PLzQxOhvjpNHw8YGqKOA1IbV8FGmii6QHIbJwxgey ONr0QFuW3B8OoPV6RfHsaSMdG5NtO6QnZsDmV/+BTgnOyzkBV7h7bScJtHFeszTjrfOC RWrachCjZhXEBDYno083Z+lacsFUl1fLJaSzRf3PckJ8IOeOisvQT8Y6X5qvUD0/aLxf XKEjfyr5IfSSshYtYzhqpuzr1XNQhek3X99Hh+y8LYDCFTCrQYJ0aCCNYr/VtAi5yBlG Jj8wNfqSqSx+8Q71adFlvj6ADHaPyZ2zukPMAeNblfvkwZwwmCMWoFDZH67KP7PJkbJc gaPw==
Received: by 10.180.80.70 with SMTP id p6mr5397833wix.21.1333026203631; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.17.29] (dhcp-111d.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.17.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fl2sm28597894wib.4.2012.03.29.06.03.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F745D91.2050608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:03:13 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@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>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D42C2@mbx-01.win.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] 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 13:03:25 -0000

Le 29/03/2012 14:36, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>> We may be talking three timers: route lifetime, router lifetime
>> (ND) and renewal time.
>
> Router lifetime isn't an issue, since that's delivered via ND
> (right?).

Right, router lifetime is delivered by ND.

> I'm saying that route lifetime MUST be>= renewal time.

That sounds logic.

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

(in case of _default_ routes, it's ND and it's Router Lifetime, in my
interpretation).

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email