IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 07:52 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 DE54E21F869D for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lp5oJTBzzPSi for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C4621F861C for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id q3O7qqGR022307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:52:52 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3O7qqRJ011889; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:52:52 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id q3O7qmOo010636; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:52:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4F965BD2.1080906@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:52:50 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <75459BC2-E733-45C0-BC1C-25A19BBA1137@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> <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> <765F32AC-FBE3-4E8B-B698-1955C5601C2B@nominum.com> <4F96550E.6020709@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0d4ez4dogDk1gRvUHvWpoTBEg_4HatQQoa5oa3Yu9NFw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0d4ez4dogDk1gRvUHvWpoTBEg_4HatQQoa5oa3Yu9NFw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:52:55 -0000

Le 24/04/2012 09:29, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 16:23, Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I have a comment about this, in the ADSL-type ISP case.
>>
>>     The CPE box wouldn't be a Windows machine. It would be unix, and it
>>     would be a router. Thus, receiving RFC4191 specific routes from an RA
>>     from CPE+1 would leave it shrugging shoulders.
>
>
> Why? The Linux Kernel supports RFC 4191, for example.

Yes, linux kernel would support it, as a Host.  The CPE is not a Host.
(yes, a flag may exist to force it be a Router _and_ listen to RA - but
  is that flag standard).

>>     If one wants to deliver specific routes to a CPE box one would't use
>>     RAs, because routers ignore much of info in them.
>>
>
> RFC 6204 specifies how IPv6 CPEs should listen to default routes in
> router advertisements. The CPEs could listen to more-specific routes as
> well.

This may mean one may need to: (1) modify RFC6204 to cover specific 
routes as well, (2) modify RFC4191 to cover Routers as well, (3) modify 
RFC6204 to do cellular base stations as well, in addition to CPE of 
ADSL-type.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email