IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Wed, 11 March 2009 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F673A6903 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NxkSIwtQRKli for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A323A67E2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.74]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2BFcKup084817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:38:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <E206991E-081C-4EFC-81AD-7559DCBDD864@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:38:35 +0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:38:14 -0000

I very strongly disagree with draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default- 
router-00.txt in its current form.

The ability to put a random address in DHCPv6 that is supposed to be a  
router, but which in actuality may or may not be a working router is a  
huge step backwards from the current situation where routers  
themselves announce their existance and therefore there is a  
reasonable expectation that they are, in fact, working routers.

What I suggest is that you change the draft such that router  
advertisements are still required, but the DHCPv6 option indicates  
which of the routers that advertise their presence a host should use.

I'm also missing any discussion about dead neighbor detection, which  
would normally make a host select a different default router.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email