Subject: [mif] Ted's comment about DHCPv6 Route Option

From: Tomasz Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:45:52 +0200

Hi,
For people not currently in MIF WG meeting, Ted Lemon commented on
dhcpv6-route-option (thanks!).

I'm not sure if I got Ted's comment right. My impression was that the
suggestion was that routing options may be put inside IA_NA options (a
container for addresses, standard feature of DHCPv6) to specify that
connections originating from leased address should indeed use specific
route.

No such thing is currently defined in the route-option-01 draft. There
was no intention to add it either, according to my knowledge. My
understanding is that IA_NA, IA_TA and IA_PD options were mentioned in a
different context. Each of those options has an identifier field (IAID)
to differentiate between multiple instances of a given option (e.g.
IA_NA with IAID=1 is different than IA_D with IAID=2). Wojciech's
comment about IA_NA was whether we should include similar IAID field in
IA_RT, not that we want to convey NEXT_HOP(with RT_PREFIX subotions) in
IA_NA.

If we incorporate Ted's comments, it will extend this proposal with kind
of source address selection configuration. I'm not necessarily opposing
that idea, I just wanted to mention that this is a significant extension
to the draft as it is currenty specified.

Tomek

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:07:51 +0000

On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:45 PM, "Tomasz Mrugalski" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

The only reason to include the IAID would be if you want to have lifetimes specific to routes, and if you wanted to do DHCPv6-style address deprecation on routes.   I'm assuming that you just update the routing table every time you get this option in a DHCPv6 packet, at least based on my most recent skim of the draft.   I will read it a little more carefully and see if my opinion changes... :)