Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:16:11 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : DHCPv6 Route Options
	Author(s)       : Wojciech Dec
                          Tomasz Mrugalski
                          Tao Sun
                          Behcet Sarikaya
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04.txt
	Pages           : 22
	Date            : 2012-02-24

   This document describes DHCPv6 Route Options for provisioning IPv6
   routes on DHCPv6 client nodes.  This is expected to improve the
   ability of an operator to configure and influence a nodes' ability to
   pick an appropriate route to a destination when this node is multi-
   homed and where other means of route configuration may be
   impractical.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04.txt

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:38:03 +0100

>    homed and where other means of route configuration may be
Dear group,

Thank you for your extensive comments and discussion in Taipei and on
the list. This is an updated draft that tries to answer raised concerns.
In particular, authors tried to deal with following problems:

- Is this option really needed? What are the use cases? I received many
comments and suggestions and tried to generate a list of use cases.
Currently 14 cases are listed, covering broadband, cellular, LTE, WiFi,
enterprise, server hosting and home networks. Note that many cases were
provided by engineers, who work for operators and have hands on
experience. I thought it would be inappropriate to mention specific
vendors and operators by name in the draft itself.

- DHCP vs RA conflict. Previously it was proposed that generally DHCP
should override RA. That is no longer the case. DHCP option format was
updated to closer follow RA format. Although on-wire representation is
different, conveyed information is mostly the same. From a host
perspective, route information received over DHCP may be processed as if
yet another RA was received.

- There were several alternative solutions proposed, like RA used in
stateful manner or segregate hosts to different VLANs. I tried to
explain, why those proposals wouldn't work or are not desirable.

Motivation and uses cases are now significant part of this draft itself.
If the group believes that it would be cleaner, it may be split into
separate draft. But please, don't use this possibility as a way to delay
this work. There are many networks that want this option deployed asap.

Please comment.

Cheers,
Tomek

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:20:30 +1300

Tomek,

Thanks for this draft and for your careful attempt to explain why
this mechanism is needed.

On 2012-02-24 23:38, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
...
> vendors and operators by name in the draft itself.

I am convinced.

> yet another RA was received.

I think that is a significant improvement.

> this work. There are many networks that want this option deployed asap.

Personally, I would move the detailed list of use cases to an Appendix
and just keep a summary in the main text. For most readers that will
be better.

I have a couple of specific comments on the use cases:

>> Use case 8: Selective walled garden.

Can you change the phrase "walled garden", here and everywhere else
in the draft? It really isn't part of the IETF's vision of the Internet.
Call it something like "Selection of specific services".

>> Use case 9: Multihoming problem.

I would like to add a statement that these arguments apply equally
when shim6 (RFC5533) is used for multihoming. Actually shim6 won't work
if route selection doesn't work, and today this seems to need manual
configuration.

Regards
  Brian