IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 published

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 27 March 2012 20:34 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 E0B1D21E80D2 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, 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 cf+zH+zFUEh1 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C395521E80D1 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3IkRdh6q8dViXZUUCo83smdsiUEarEc@postini.com; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:16 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 88FEE1B8178 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:13 -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 807EC190064; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.134]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:34:13 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 published
Thread-Index: AQHM8uBsQi4512i5cE6t8t5dPnex2ZZnd0OAgAACEYCABGRggIAAcFuAgAFcGoCAABh6gIAQ5pEA///UD5yAAJe8gP//tp/0
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:34:12 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472C40AD@mbx-02.win.nominum.com>
References: <20120224101611.22703.52041.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F47688B.10508@gmail.com> <4F5E2F61.9040009@gmail.com> <611FBED3-349A-43E7-B4B9-0BC313EA4F7A@nominum.com> <4F61E04F.4020800@gmail.com> <DF5F4B7B-7486-4878-A096-084BDA1CB7C4@nominum.com> <4F636291.7060104@gmail.com> <DCF9392C-CE26-4587-A912-23EC7044B0F3@nominum.com>, <4F71A47C.7050906@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472C3F41@mbx-02.win.nominum.com>, <4F71FEE9.2010106@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F71FEE9.2010106@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] draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 published
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:34:18 -0000

> You seem to be saying that is too short?  I believe it is way too long
> for a device that moves constantly.

No, for a device that moves constantly, depending on route lifetimes to expire will result in unhappy eyeballs.   For such devices, a route might as well not have an expiry time, unless it is soon, because network transition events will invalidate the route before its lifetime expires.

But of course there are devices that do not move constantly; for such devices, route lifetimes longer than 18 hours are reasonable, and should be supported.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email