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

Le 24/02/2012 11:38, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
[...]
> - 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.

But still RA uses 16bit lifetimes for default routes whereas this draft
uses 32bit lifetimes, right?

Alex

> 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.
>
> - 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.
>
> Please comment.
>
> Cheers, Tomek _______________________________________________ mif
> mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>