IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous way forward

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 28 October 2011 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 4ECA721F8B5B for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 NxVKH+Pr08nD for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D23121F8B2B for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:33:03 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760181B8274 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BAA5190052; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:32:49 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous way forward
Thread-Index: AQHMlWq7p60UWax4k0O/c99sBcL01JWRsJPI
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:32:49 +0000
Message-ID: <6A9A0ED8-D763-4788-9E98-C54633152CE1@nominum.com>
References: <4EAA9BEA.1060108@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EAA9BEA.1060108@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous way forward
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:33:04 -0000

On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:11 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I have discussed this privately with Tomasz, I think I rememember not
> agreement; but I would dare now to try ask other opionion from WG
> members - what do you think?)

Maximilian quite eloquently explained the needless additional complexity introduced by the default route option.   He didn't point out that in order for the route lifetime field to be meaningful, changes would have to be made to the DHCPv6 client state machine, but this is also true.

It seems really clear cut to me: the route option is simpler, and does everything we need, and so that is what we should use going forward.   I also agree with Simon that this has been discussed to death.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email