IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 12:58 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 5E00D21F86D0 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, 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 Vr9msyYuqC1y for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B514621F86D1 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3Wt/MRTUhR6zI3gGfGePu3VGeuF10KT@postini.com; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:37 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 770051B8269 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (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 6B57E190064; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:58:36 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, mif <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Summary issues after meeting, draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04
Thread-Index: AQHNDnHL2JhwvPbaZEatZIDGEix3ApaCy+g3
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:58:36 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4897@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <4F75A8E2.1010606@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F75A8E2.1010606@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
Subject: Re: [mif] 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 12:58:38 -0000

Alexandru, I think the major misunderstanding here has to do with your use case.   The route option as it was floated was not originally intended to address your use case, and when it was changed to address your use case, it got a lot less popular.   Thiss was not because there's anything wrong with your use case, but because it came to be perceived as more applicable to use cases where, from an architectural perspective, the IETF would prefer to use RA.   That is, it came to be perceived as a generic replacement for RA, which wasn't what the working group set out to do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email