Re: [mif] Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option

[Tomasz Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

On 31.10.2011 18:16, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 30/10/2011 18:24, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>> On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> The question one raised on 6man is about coexistence with RA about
>>> default route. One is aware that a similar situation (alternate
>>> mechanism DHCP-vs-RA for default route) appeared recently when DNS-in-RA
>>> was proposed (DHCP existed doing DNS). RFC6106 proposes to do
>>> DNS-in-RA but has a section explaining coexistence with DHCP about DNS
>>> address - and gives the latter precedence over.
>>
>> This is a very good point, which should be addressed in the route option
>> draft. I think the right thing is to give RA precedence over DHCP for
>> routing information, but am curious to know if others disagree.
> 
> I do not disagree: in the default route case, if RA offers such data
> then give it preference over the default route obtained from DHCP.
Sorry, but I can't parse that sentence. You seem to agree with Ted (DHCP
preferred over RA), but the later part of the sentence states otherwise
(RA preferred over RA).

> (the preference mechanism can be specified by using the lifetime
> mechanism).
Can you elaborate on that? What has lifetime to do with preference? Do
you want to somehow prefer longer (or shorter) lifetimes? That is rather
dangerous and I would like to avoid that. I believe that clear statement
("DHCP overrides RA" or "RA overrides DHCP") will help a lot here.

Tomek