Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

Alexandru Petrescu <> Tue, 13 September 2011 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8A111E80D4 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.279
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I9LKsXFjZwP9 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D6C11E80C9 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so1028708fxd.31 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=b0GVr2nAZXvi2E1tmq6zSIQWFKRfCbY1H1piIwpMm7g=; b=hcKSzY5FMW/NdLW5QdP9wN8G9QKNmqT38+NRmvkidy4o2r8Sn9fxdipkKRNlff7trM E0LAF/fPBXd/afGRnqErs/ytmSGTeH28zakzqQSs1Im4J5GCdWucqckn5Wo1Go7HTlEm WC6/+m9HpZzTsayt0WGvan/qMgIShuq417H1o=
Received: by with SMTP id q24mr867283fae.148.1315947123949; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id r3sm1370180fam.26.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:51:56 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:49:58 -0000

Le 13/09/2011 21:15, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> With respect to lifetimes: if you do not agree discussing lifetimes
>> now then you may agree discussing lifetimes when implementation
>> feedback of existing option is out. I suppose there is currently no
>> implementation of the existing option, whereas implementation of
>> draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00 does exist, as reflected in
> How does the existing implementation handle renewal?

The existing implementation of draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00 does not
handle renewal.  We're facing too many options about it: should it
RENEW?  Should it send an RS as well?  This is up to debate.  But it is
related only to the default route, not the other routes.

Remark the debate comes from the lifetime of ND as well.

>> What do you mean by "use case" so I can better detail how this
>> default route option is necessary, thanks.
> The 3G+ scenario is the first use case you've presented, so thanks
> for that.
> If interface names are in fact required, that's interesting. I really
>  don't understand how that could work, though, since the DHCP server
> has no way to know what the client operating system is calling the
> interface.
> Also, I'm a bit confused by the idea of an interface route with no
> router address in IPv6. I will admit to being something of a tyro
> when it comes to these things, but I don't understand how that would
> work. Does the client simply multicast every packet? Is there an RFC
> or draft that documents how this works?

Just puts it on the pipe, but needs to know on which pipe when several
interfaces are available.

I would like to add further:
- we do not try to suggest problems for others to solve, but would like
   to participate in the solution space.
- in the use case of use Mobile IP, the default route on a 3G+ terminal
   points actually to a virtual interface tunnel name, and not to a real
   interface.  (the real interface is used as target of a host-specific
   route towards the Mobile IP home agent.)
- in the case of using a v6-v4 transition method, the default IPv6
   route points to a virtual interface as well, and not to a real
   interface.  In this case as well, the default route communicated by
   DHCPv6 to a multiply-interfaced Client needs potentially much more
   than simply dst address of the default router.