Re: [mif] draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 published

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Tomek,

Thanks for this draft and for your careful attempt to explain why
this mechanism is needed.

On 2012-02-24 23:38, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
...
> - Is this option really needed? What are the use cases? I received many
> comments and suggestions and tried to generate a list of use cases.
> Currently 14 cases are listed, covering broadband, cellular, LTE, WiFi,
> enterprise, server hosting and home networks. Note that many cases were
> provided by engineers, who work for operators and have hands on
> experience. I thought it would be inappropriate to mention specific
> vendors and operators by name in the draft itself.

I am convinced.

> 
> - DHCP vs RA conflict. Previously it was proposed that generally DHCP
> should override RA. That is no longer the case. DHCP option format was
> updated to closer follow RA format. Although on-wire representation is
> different, conveyed information is mostly the same. From a host
> perspective, route information received over DHCP may be processed as if
> yet another RA was received.

I think that is a significant improvement.

> 
> - There were several alternative solutions proposed, like RA used in
> stateful manner or segregate hosts to different VLANs. I tried to
> explain, why those proposals wouldn't work or are not desirable.
> 
> Motivation and uses cases are now significant part of this draft itself.
> If the group believes that it would be cleaner, it may be split into
> separate draft. But please, don't use this possibility as a way to delay
> this work. There are many networks that want this option deployed asap.

Personally, I would move the detailed list of use cases to an Appendix
and just keep a summary in the main text. For most readers that will
be better.

I have a couple of specific comments on the use cases:

>> Use case 8: Selective walled garden.

Can you change the phrase "walled garden", here and everywhere else
in the draft? It really isn't part of the IETF's vision of the Internet.
Call it something like "Selection of specific services".

>> Use case 9: Multihoming problem.

I would like to add a statement that these arguments apply equally
when shim6 (RFC5533) is used for multihoming. Actually shim6 won't work
if route selection doesn't work, and today this seems to need manual
configuration.

Regards
  Brian