> Second, using default routes in the same option type of specific routes > means that they'd share the same faith - if specific routes are wrongly > configured in the same section of the config file, there is a risk that > the default route is wrongly configured too. Or, the default route is > something of last resort, so it would be better to have it configured in > a different place, communicated with a different ORO type.
Operationally it is always better for things to completely fail than to partially fail, because you see the problem immediately. In the case of a DHCP server configuration problem, it's hard to see why it would be easier to misconfigure a DHCP server when there is a single option than when there are two. > Third, if a single way of configuring default an specific routes with > DHCP then this means that a bigger software implementation would be > needed even for lightweight devices. Or, lightweight devices only use a > single route - the default route. Do you know of any specific devices that have this problem? > I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes ORO. I think this is a good way to solve the problem you have described, but I don't think the problem needs to be solved. I'd be interested to hear a specific, concrete use case for this. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
