Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00

maximilien mouton <maximilien.mouton@gmail.com> Mon, 12 September 2011 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <maximilien.mouton@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 164C021F8E3A for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 QU9E5UKJOpBB for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4815B21F8E22 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so1592110fxd.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2z+zA70HVvxF4WTIickWfTpwwGp0gFjFxKpaCCxTmDE=; b=Mn6tHxEWmNwTNalm/wBWWBK4XutdANXlf9B9wVJSgg336rj+FIv0ETDbwas3uuDHGg aMyEKnSyJtthVtsHYyh/UrdIDy7/8+filq0qgbbVowvlCr5pzuw2nU/d4gbWlKNQUd00 4jeX6KKv4bkGz5xpod0r5aAB+plY5WN2T+W3Q=
Received: by 10.223.53.84 with SMTP id l20mr611492fag.89.1315863171009; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (scy57-1-88-169-184-224.fbx.proxad.net [88.169.184.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o16sm8077667fag.21.2011.09.12.14.32.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6E7A72.9030208@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:32:34 +0200
From: maximilien mouton <maximilien.mouton@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <ghalwasi@cisco.com>
References: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3CF88B99A9ED504197498BC6F6F04B81040FBDA9@XMB-BGL-41E.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Comments on draft-mouton-mif-dhcpv6-drlo-00
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:30:48 -0000

Hi Gaurav,

Thank you for your review. See my answers inside.

Le 12/09/2011 07:10, Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi) a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I read this draft, I think similar issue is also being discussed/solved
> by draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-05 as well.
>

Can you say more about this discussion?

>
>
> I see that you are proposing to have lifetime and MAC address in the
> route option. Why do we want to communicate the lifetime of the route in
> this option and that too I guess you are proposing to have a upper limit
> of 150 minutes (9000 seconds) on that. What is the reason behind that.

Actually we are following section 6.2.1 of rfc 4861 but this value can
be discussed.

> What should be done after the expiry of this 150 minutes..?
> Information-Request..? or DHCP Renew.?

I tend to Information-Request.

>
> I don't think that router lifetime will be that short

I understand your comment. What do you propose? 7 days like proposed for 
a not default route?
Do you think this field should be 2 or 4 bytes long?


> and even if router
> lifetime expires, DHCPv6 server can just send RECONFIGURE.

I agree.

> Normally
> IPv6 addres lease time will not usually be that less.
>
>
>
> Further, What's the real need of having MAC/link address in the route
> list option as there already exists means to get it.

We assume that this option is useful because it gives the client the 
possibility to avoid waiting for na.

Thanks,

Maximilien

>
> Thanks,
>
> Gaurav
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif