[mif] Fwd: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option
Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 23:34 UTC
Return-Path: <denghui02@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 1A0CA21F88A1 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 DHEWi5GlfS4W for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A3F21F888A for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so2337518wwf.13 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=eTn8SUMArsYCt9D0oiOCFa2kPd/oufuBbfJpbsAvz4o=; b=qMSB+2sDpNMQzvBS4jE7/fBKV82tCRDMvDFykMjHEGwCX2zFVetKN+F7NCBOCKsbZp SXStMAFmhu4wmCkVGWw4Z9oSvk6d06OmXKD97jb27idIv/+pLIYqv+DY3fpfQ5gTfgAS 9LA3f+PBS8Ez+6TDeYSGYnTWD5dRILArMhU84=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.24.30 with SMTP id w30mr3390373wew.68.1313192081441; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.25.204 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4271D8B5-93A8-4D4D-99BA-957FC85C294E@nominum.com>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B920122BF40@SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4271D8B5-93A8-4D4D-99BA-957FC85C294E@nominum.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:34:41 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMDW2dnZN4+JO-NDLNbMkT=u93xbhqDLudes78-mZjxdAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: MIF Mailing List <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016367f9b768943be04aa575b67"
Subject: [mif] Fwd: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:34:06 -0000
just forwarding to MIF mailing list for reference ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Date: 2011/8/13 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org> On Aug 12, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote: The major issue I have for this draft is: why design an IA container if "client will never use more than one IA_RT" (stated in this draft) and it has only one sub-option - Next Hop option. For me, it seems more explicit and simple to directly define Next Hop Option and allow multiple Next Hop Option if needed. If it really is the case that there is only going to be one suboption, I think you are correct. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg