Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz at cisco.com>]

>So I think the answer is that we will be seeing a static routes option
>in the very near future, and maybe it is not a bad idea to add it to
>the current draft?

We already have ... there is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-01.txt

   This document describes the DHCPv6 Route Option for provisioning
   static IPv6 routes by a DHCPv6 client.  It is primarily envisaged for
   implementation on a DHCP client stack of a broadband Residential
   Gateway (RG) node.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of David W. Hankins
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:01 PM
To: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:47:42AM -0700, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> contain no PIOs nor router lifetime. It might also be
> necessary for RAs to contain other information such as
> RIOs (RFC4191) that may not be practically available
> from DHCP.
> 
> Unless there is a DHCP equivalent for conveying such
> "other" information (is there?), I guess that in some
> use cases that would argue for option 3 (use both)?

There's a small blurb in Ralph's draft that says something like this,
"It does not matter if DHCPv6 is just as bad as DHCPv4, it can not be
worse."  And operation without RA is also a stated requirement.

So I think the answer is that we will be seeing a static routes option
in the very near future, and maybe it is not a bad idea to add it to
the current draft?

If we did have a static routes option, would we want that to cover any
default route(s) as well?

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins