IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 13:52 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 296C521F8885 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, 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 V1DfyXgx4Yp6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5333621F8833 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3RpC4z1ea8YUdCwC2SETp+b7PBU8/Di@postini.com; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:12 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 080521B807D for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (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 F2929190064; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:52:11 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?
Thread-Index: AQHNDL2jhfr6t6vyVEeGR+93z5NinJZ/3M2AgAG+LoD//4t2bYAAgpgAgAAAh4CAABcYAP//i0r4
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:52:08 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D43A1@mbx-01.win.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>
In-Reply-To: <72C42575-6BE2-4F27-B7F4-AA4539DA7EF9@lilacglade.org>
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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:52:15 -0000

> The DHCPv6 route option is _not_ a dynamic routing protocol.  [etc]

Wow, thanks, that's a really good point.   It would be a big improvement to this protocol if in fact we operated that way.

However, there is one issue to consider: what happens when a route is removed from the configuration of the DHCP server after it's been installed by a client, and a new route replaces it?   We'd like that route to expire.   So even though I think you are right that we should *consider* these routes to be essentially statiic, I think we still need to put lifetimes on them on the client side, when the client installs the route.   This lifetime should be long enough that we can count on the routing table entry being refreshed by a DHCP renewal or DHCP information refresh before the entry expires, but short enough that if a route is removed from the DHCP server configuration, it does not remain, stale, in the client's routing table for an inconvenient time.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email