Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

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

While it is still early for me to tell exactly what the semantics around
these option(s) will be, I think there are other technologies (even
Cable) where this could be extremely beneficial.

The reason is that it could eliminate periodic RAs. And for
non-broadcast technologies (Cable, 3GPP, DSL, etc), that could be a big
win. The client can be given the router information with the DHCP
transaction and renewed when the lease is renewed.

For non-broadcast networks, having to send an RA to each "client" every
N seconds is costly (especially if you have thousands or millions of
devices connected). Consider also the fact that sometimes the device
connecting is doing so via Ethernet emulation, so it can't be told that
seeing RAs once is a blue moon is OK.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: sthaug at nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:51 AM
To: john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com
Cc: Olaf.Bonness at telekom.de; Hemant Singh (shemant); Bernie Volz (volz);
narten at us.ibm.com; int-area at ietf.org; dhcwg at ietf.org;
Ted.Lemon at nominum.com; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

> Like I said earlier we need to understand who or what type of provider
is
> making this request.  I am not aware of cable providers making this
request,
> I have not.

I work for a DSL provider. We would very much like to have a DHCPv6
router option. As mentioned this has been discussed extensively on 
the dhcwg list. Our reasons for wanting a DHCPv6 router option are
mainly:

- We would like to have *all* the dynamic configuration in one place,
specifically DHCP. DHCP hands out much more info than RA (RA alone
cannot do it).

- We already have an extensive DHCP based infrastructure, which ties
in with other operational support systems.

- We much prefer to have *one* mechanism to distribute information to
CPEs (has to do with support, debugging, documentation etc).

There is also the argument that some kind of "DHCPv6 guard" is needed
independently of whether a DHCPv6 router option exists or not.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no