IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 DCAC721F8A9B for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 1Up7viCdrW-k for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86E521F8A98 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq11 with SMTP id q11so1178112eaa.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2pTL1HWVrg4ku1sU4gWwWvnukCezns3GcRYa8eAvDiA=; b=EXjs8U6ZinKHzOe2clWZH8H/NE602jiGREokYO2YWYJN0gd5iQ95GDa281QRBMU+RI ny08VzBcDHZN6rGunQRQZBxlAKmAXVTMIp7wN/TrRpd+ijGJAryQBOLvm8KE6wJZ8f6R cuPqXSBfI4EQqS5lO7VUZO6tAj2MLZbNlq6R2O38fHL91+RmfZUlaASlwcEz/y6X52mk TA6H9UiMj1dlEZmxI1gFjl+JG4Yci6DwnhFzsG4vl+Z4FRM7/GGIAqmt2YOyhWULLtIs sOQcIIRVBYKN8DTK3B739PNo76C6lH9icl2gSHpDBQzxsvzxAXLbCRXRmsd3TcLdUTkl sRDA==
Received: by 10.213.17.130 with SMTP id s2mr2510617eba.115.1333023863322; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.17.29] (dhcp-111d.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.17.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q45sm20681502eem.7.2012.03.29.05.24.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F74546D.4060808@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:24:13 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@gmail.com> <CAE97176.17DF4%wdec@cisco.com> <CANF0JMD_zfXGcfMy+rCOFXS1aCZ3RPHoRtkBeS8kDgOFcfQ8Fg@mail.gmail.com> <75D251D1-9828-4AFE-9BEF-B376E97133C7@nominum.com> <CANF0JMBbhrF0G=hSvcvyZAddAMW7oSO5KpzUmcJXCtwcnmyWOw@mail.gmail.com> <4A221CE5-ECF0-4E07-9329-E6BAA3F06A96@nominum.com> <4EC4AADB.8030803@piuha.net> <DD1241D5-B794-49C3-A3A2-4294248DDD10@gmail.com> <4F719186.3060507@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tSoDPcheriWdZEeKyhqpDANCP7Co0wVVqK5+mXc7e5A@mail.gmail.com> <4F72CD22.3080604@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RUUthiawKrmxjSNqzEbJcOLpHvDGb9XLtdiU-tfEYyw@mail.gmail.com>, <4F744831.3070406@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D4175@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <4F7453FC.3010502@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7453FC.3010502@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:24:28 -0000

Le 29/03/2012 14:22, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
> On 12-03-29 13:35, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Probably the best thing to do is set the router lifetime to the DHCP
>> renewal time, and not send a lifetime separate from that.
> We are talking about two timers here: route lifetime and renewal time
> (governed by information refresh time, defined in RFC4242). Will add
> clarification text that route lifetime should be greater than
> information refresh time. Making them equal is not a such good idea as
> it could trigger race conditions. Otherwise badness will happen.

We may be talking three timers: route lifetime, router lifetime (ND) and 
renewal time.

Alex

>
> Tomek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email