Brian,
Alexandru,
On 25/07/2012 16:07, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Brian,
In the email below you touch lightly on the discussion about routes
with DHCP (default or otherwise).
I wonder whether we have a conclusion on that discussion?
I haven't seen a clear conclusion, and of course it is not a topic
for MIF alone. It really is a cross-WG and cross-Area question.
WEll yes, more or less. I think there exist aspects in this dhcp route
discussion that pertain more to the multiple interfaces use case.
And this was already sent from DHC to here, and from ipv6 WG to here.
At some point if the work needs to be done just do it somewhere where
the expertise is present and call it something.
My understanding is that at the last F2F meeting in Paris there
was strong opposition in doing routes with DHCP. And that on the
mailing list there is activity that supports both.
Indeed. There are certainly people whose preferred deployment
scenarios favour one or the other. That hasn't changed in the last 5
years.
A suggestion I received privately is to rather develop Neighbor
Discovery Prefix Delegation, instead of DHCP default route (if I
want to save on the number of messages).
I think the objective evidence is that the market wants both.
Although, as the editor of RFC 1958, I support its principle "If
there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one", there
are times when this is unrealistic.
I wonder whether draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 is going to
be updated and how?
In the mif agenda of the Vancouver meeting I do not see any
presentation about this topic.
What
What, indeed!
Sorry, that was an error of my keyboard loosing power and arbitrarily
sending characters.
Yours,
Alex
Brian
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
