Re: [mif] IPv4 similarity in DefRoute-distinct-from-RouteOption (was: Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00)

Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Mon, 26 September 2011 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 B5F7C21F8D7A for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.775
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 hT6C5HdJEnP6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B1921F8CF3 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2607:fa48:6e6b:c280:3cbe:25fe:e30e:bedd] (unknown [IPv6:2607:fa48:6e6b:c280:3cbe:25fe:e30e:bedd]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A780C21C52; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <C2E73208-6CF6-4193-8ACB-AB3B34F390CB@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:08:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6D49E8C2-1D38-4612-98E7-B56FE2FF76AC@viagenie.ca>
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> <4E6FA049.1040309@viagenie.ca> <4E803AE5.2000203@gmail.com> <4E807918.1020308@gmail.com> <C2E73208-6CF6-4193-8ACB-AB3B34F390CB@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] IPv4 similarity in DefRoute-distinct-from-RouteOption (was: 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: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:05:57 -0000

Le 2011-09-26 à 11:06, Ted Lemon a écrit :

> On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Nonetheless, the IPv4 software ended up with distinct options: one for
>> default route and one for classless routes.  It would be little
>> straightforward to port that IPv4 software to IPv6 if this latter had
>> only one option for both route and default route.
> 
> I personally consider it an unfortunate artifact of the way the classless static routes option evolved that we weren't able to have it support all routes, including the default route.   It's always a bad idea to have two ways of specifying the same information—it creates a very clear potential for interoperability problems.

s/interoperability/interoperability and operational/

Marc.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif