> 
> Please note that Ryan’s “manage their IPv6 systems” really means “run their 
> business”.  In many organizations the routing network is managed by a 
> different group with different business goals and procedures than end 
> systems.  Allowing flexibility for this, if it is not overwhelmingly costly, 
> is a reasonable goal.
> 

I guess in that case, one must ask one's self whether setting the default (or 
any other) route entries in the host routing tables qualifies as a "end system" 
issue or a "routing network" issue. My inclination is to think that it really 
is a "routing network" issue more than a "end system" issue, but I can see some 
valid arguments in either direction.

It seems to me that no matter what solution one uses to deliver the default 
route information to the end system's routing table, this is an area which will 
inherently require cooperation and interaction between the group that manages 
the end systems and the group that manages the routers. I have yet to see an 
environment where this can be avoided in IPv4 and I wouldn't expect it to work 
out particularly well in IPv6, though I think we can come closer to having it 
work by having the network group control the prefix assignment and routing 
information delivered to the hosts than we could otherwise.

> On my part, I see adding a default route parameter to DHCPv6 about as earth 
> shaking as adding a default NTP server list.  In other words, cut the crap 
> and do it so we can save NANOG electrons and get on with solving more 
> important network problems.

Personally, I'd hate to see us waste the effort on such a half-assed measure. 
If we're going to add routing information to DHCPv6, then I think it should be 
roughly equivalent to what is contained in an RIO within an RA (Prefix, Mask, 
Next Hop, Metric).

(Though in the case of RA, the Next Hop is implicitly the router providing the 
RIO, obviously in DHCPv6, it would have to be explicit)

With such an option added to DHCPv6, then default router could simply be one 
case, but the flexibility for more complex routing situations to be addressed 
would also exist.

Owen


Reply via email to