IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 13:38 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 8DD6E21F8666 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 sxhp6yl7Xm-b for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9598A21F8652 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT5VbSGm4dbNQyz17Ax722GOKMmoSjzEQ@postini.com; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:17 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 795261B8204 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:16 -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 6845319005D; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:16 -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; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:38:16 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
Thread-Index: AQHNDL2jhfr6t6vyVEeGR+93z5NinJZ/3M2AgAG+LoD//4t2bYAAgpgAgAAAh4CAABcYAP//i0r4gAC0mQD//8qt3gAjg1aA//+udoeAB9F/gIACyb4AgAeCygCAAWAsAIAC8VsAgARAqQCAC32NgIAARPoA
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:38:15 +0000
Message-ID: <765F32AC-FBE3-4E8B-B698-1955C5601C2B@nominum.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> <4F74546D.4060808@gmail.com> <72C42575-6BE2-4F27-B7F4-AA4539DA7EF9@lilacglade.org> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D43A1@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <069301cd0dd2$5954df00$0bfe9d00$@tndh.net> <550B9F79-1642-469F-9ED3-96DA26AA40AB@lilacglade.org> <97D4F82A-63! 21-403F-9097-F7B48601DCD5@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4hkGMm+mLSzpdWPcFLUcY3Hkyb+BDxh+5910YtfZxGD-A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+H2C9Zu3AS6aTxg1gebe0ZS2LXWmJjOPpbhaUHGZtXvF0UipQ@mail.gmail.com> <17F90720-AA1F-4F74-9598-2E5A5AC813CE@nttv6.net> <CAKD1Yr1s7SARfnowZV1uU=dDPi46-OjRQnM4otKsW3Y-k+84cw@mail.gmail.com> <F4D68CC2-27C5-4FB1-A11F-026E5261DB77@nttv6.net>
In-Reply-To: <F4D68CC2-27C5-4FB1-A11F-026E5261DB77@nttv6.net>
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-ID: <92EAB3D1FC80FE42A3F765284A06E724@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: MIF List Mailing <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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:38:18 -0000

On Apr 23, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net> wrote:
> I said, "From the access network provider perspective".
> It is the cost they have to pay that matters to them.

It would help to complete this argument if you unpacked the details here.   Why is RA so much more expensive than DHCP in this case?   I get the sense that this is obvious to the people who are promoting various DHCP route options, but it clearly isn't obvious to people who aren't network operators, so more detail is needed.

> AFAIK, only Windows Vista and above supports RFC 4191 by default, though.

This is not a good argument.   Windows Vista is ancient.   We can't define IPv6 in terms of the functionality present in Windows XP.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email