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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 30/03/2012 09:21, Margaret Wasserman a écrit :
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>
>> Tony, if you really think this option is a good idea, can you send
>> me some email explaining why you think it is, privately, since the
>>  working group is at least temporarily not working on this? I'd
>> like to get some clarity on the reasons why people want this that
>> can be used next time it comes up, so that we have a clear set of
>> use cases to present next time. The VPN split tunnel case isn't
>> familiar to me.
>
> Actually, this topic is still in the MIF charter, and there was
> pretty strong consensus that we still want to work on a solution to
> this problem.
>
> What there wasn't consensus on, unfortunately, is whether we should
> specify a DHCPv6 option to solve it -- ~12 people thought we should,

Let me add to this, there was a vote along these lines in jabber as well.

Alex

> and ~18 people thought we should consider something else
> (unspecified). Sadly, those 18 people probably won't unite around a
> single alternative, so what we have is a bit of a mess...
>
> I think it would make sense to document a couple of solid use cases
> where we think that something like this is needed, and current RAs
> can't or don't solve the problem.
>
> Tony, it sounds like you have a specific VPN use-case in mind, could
> you elaborate?
>
> As I understand it, there is a need to get routes to cell phones that
>  tell them that certain services (ones that are only accessible over
>  3GPP) need to be routed via the 3GPP interface, not via the 802.11
> interface, even if 802.11 is cheaper, faster and preferred for
> general traffic. I am wondering if this is essentially the same as
> the VPN use case? Is there a reason why routes could not be
> transmitted over ND for this purpose, though?
>
> One alternative that was raised at the mic, but that has not (to my
> knowledge actually been proposed anywhere) was the use of unicast ND
> for cases when you want to configure different routes on different
> nodes. Are there problems in this space that would not be solved by
> doing that? If so, what are they? If not, perhaps we need to write up
> a unicast ND mechanism?
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif