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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Tue, 13 September 2011 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 DD3D911E80E6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 4d2WwwwW+mqU for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64DC11E80E5 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banana.viagenie.ca (nomis80.org [97.107.136.111]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF83221107; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E6FB304.1060703@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:46:12 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@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> <7061CEB8-8084-41D5-B31E-9F8E3B6C7091@nominum.com> <4E6F9B91.7010503@gmail.com> <B987CA14-569C-428C-8D8A-C97A0E42EF48@nominum.com> <4E6FA64E.7020801@gmail.com> <82337D11-0A39-4A10-AA0E-1E81B09DBA4F@nominum.com> <4E6FACF6.5000007@viagenie.ca> <460A90E1-7A38-484E-BA55-62F080478DB3@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <460A90E1-7A38-484E-BA55-62F080478DB3@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:44:09 -0000

Ted Lemon wrote, on 09/13/2011 03:41 PM:
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> I'm guessing that's a point-to-point interface. So you don't need the next hop's
>> L2 address. You just send it down the tube and it gets at the other end. The
>> classic example is PPP.
> 
> Okay, that sort of makes sense, but it seems like it's impossible for the DHCP
> server to know what that interface is called, and easy to just have the client
> set up the routing since it knows what it's doing.

Agreed.

In any case it's still possible to describe a P-t-P route using the remote
endpoint's IP address instead of the interface name or index. So IMHO the 3G use
case is supported by the current draft.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca