Subject: Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:11:26 -0400

All,
     The MIF WG is currently defining a DHCPv6 option for defining
routes (including default routes) on client nodes.  Please review the
draft and provide any feedback you have.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Wes Beebee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:52:08 -0400

What happens when both RA and DHCPv6 are configured?

- Wes

On 10/28/11 9:11 AM, "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:58:06 -0500

This is precisely the question that I and Bernie Volz asked a year or
two back.  Similarly when it was discussed to add a DNS option to the
IPv6 ND RA when the DNS option was already supported by DHCPv6.  The
question was if the receiving node gets the same information from two
different sources, which information wins? What if one information was
fat-fingered at the SP provisioning system while the other was not?  We
should look at the RFC that added the DNS option to the RA and see if
that RFC has a section regarding this question and we could copy that
guidance.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Cc: [email-masked]; Bob Hinden; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option

- Wes

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:33:18 +0100

> that RFC has a section regarding this question and we could copy that

The DNS-in-RA case is RFC6106 "IPv6 RA DNS Options" right?  That has a 
section saying:
-both RA and DHCP could coexist and give the DNS and,
-in case both are present then a list of DNS-related should be
  maintained and
-that DNS obtained from DHCP takes precedence over that from RA.
If I read it correctly.

Then, in the case of DHCP route-option draft, in a similar manner, one 
would say that routes obtained from DHCP should be less priority when 
such routes were available from RA (the default route) or from routing 
protocols (e.g. OSPF).

One particular aspect I am concerned about is the lifetime in the case 
of default routes.  There seems to me RA offers a particular lifetime to 
the default route, whereas the DHCP route-option proposed mechanism in 
the route-option draft keeps lifetime differently (length, optionality, 
values).

In this sense it seems logical that modifications to the route-option 
draft may be necessary for a clearer coexistence with existing protocols 
which offer routes and default routes.

Alex
PS: disclose: I am co-authoring an alternate draft for default route
     list option (drlo) with DHCP which does things differently  than
     the DHCP route-option MIF WG item.

> On 10/28/11 9:11 AM, "Brian Haberman"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> All,