IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 17:53 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 8C34A21F8CD3 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 miY6SHPwbwCo for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DBB21F8CCA for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTm+ZHN0DFsF4TLl99dGoRx4XsG9ky5Sm@postini.com; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:55:41 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 A0E6710801F for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:55:40 -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 93D3C190061; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:55:40 -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 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:55:40 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
Thread-Index: AcxxClosDL9zuhm1Q+CTqXShqzwWxAAw84cAAAfxtgAABv0IAAARg+mAAAbg3wAAAWjoAAAA9R+AAAEFqoA=
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:55:39 +0000
Message-ID: <7061CEB8-8084-41D5-B31E-9F8E3B6C7091@nominum.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com> <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com> <4E6EAFC2.5060906@gmail.com> <4E6EDEA8.3080108@gmail.com> <CFDF82EE-052B-4A61-AE1B-152337822B6E@nominum.com> <4E6F825C.3080303@gmail.com> <3D0B3661-8A8F-4BB2-A8EF-25007BEAF66C@nominum.com> <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6F923F.7090304@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.162.214.218]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7061CEB8808441D5B31E9F8E3B6C7091nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
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, 13 Sep 2011 17:53:35 -0000

On Sep 13, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Does this explanation add to clarity of my initially short phrase?

I think so, yes.   I think it's fine to have an option in the config file that specifies a default route, or routes in general.   Putting a lifetime on that, I think, is impractical.   If the administrator wants a short lifetime on these routes, they should be setting a short lifetime on the addresses offered by the DHCP server, so that renewals come often enough to meet this need.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email