IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] ways forward( was: Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 13:18 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 359F221F8688 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.492
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, 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 jeK96bH87yBX for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095BC21F8677 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3Wynt8I9iSeLjVqT+0WkQJovJXD9FIZ@postini.com; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:23 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 CA7BA1B8269 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:21 -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 C286C190064; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:21 -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 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:18:21 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: ways forward( was: [mif] Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04)
Thread-Index: AQHNDna1+dCJm9+NZUKwEfMtrM1uU5aC0aAL
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:18:21 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D48E8@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <4F75A8E2.1010606@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4897@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <4F75B11C.1000401@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F75B11C.1000401@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] ways forward( was: Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04)
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, 30 Mar 2012 13:18:26 -0000

> Would this imply to suggest next steps of route-option without default
> routes?  I would not oppose such way forward.

I think this would be a lot more palatable to the IETF as a whole.    As to the history, remember that it was after WGLC that the IETF as a whole saw this draft, and objections were raised.   Nobody in MIF particularly objected to the default route support, because we understood the use cases for the option, but when it went to the IETF at large, a lot of people read the draft for the first time who didn't understand what motivated it, and so to them it looked like an RA replacement for general use in all networks.   And the draft certainly did nothing to disabuse them of that notion.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email