Subject: [mif] dhcp route option issues on tracker

From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:05:24 +0900

Hi,

# should I comment to the list, or to the tracker ? Anyway.

Thank you for filing issues on tracker site.
After browsing through the filed issues, I found that the only blocker
issue of this item is #9.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/9

Other issues just suggest small changes to the draft, or deletion of
specific use cases in the draft.

The issue #9 argues about the "fate sharing" characteristics of RA.
I admit it is surely an advantage of RA base mechanism. But, as you know
it, RA and DHCP has its own benefits. So, IMHO, the single benefit of RA
does not block the DHCP based mechanism.
I don't know why this issue if the blocker of this draft.

Thanks.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:59:41 +0000

> I don't know why this issue if the blocker of this draft.

It seems to me to be a weak argument anyway. Fate sharing is valuable in
the context of the end to end argument, but that is not in question here.
Yes, the DHCP server is a different point of failure from the router,
but both of them are single points of failure for the network as a
whole. If you are running DHCP at all, it must never fail.

I don't think this is a blocking issue, either.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter
   Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:09:05 +0000

> I don't think this is a blocking issue, either.

+1

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:08:30 -0500

+1

A question to people who think that lack of fate sharing is a deal
breaker: There are currently 78 DHCPv6 options defined. Is DHCPv6 server
supposed to share faith with all those services?

Tomek

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:14:53 +0900

> supposed to share faith with all those services?

Of course not, but that's no reason to gratuitously discard it where
it's available.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:23:13 +0000

> Of course not, but that's no reason to gratuitously discard it where

In order to "gratuitously discard" fate sharing, this document would have to explicitly deprecate neighbor discovery.  As Arifumi-san said earlier, this document does not do that—it just provides an alternative in environments where the benefits of fate-sharing are outweighed by the benefits of being able to distribute routes to specific clients using DHCP.

I think it's important to be clear on this distinction—like you, I would oppose this document's advancement if, as you claim, it gratuitously discarded fate sharing.