Subject: [dhcwg] Two options proposed during WG last call

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:10:55 -0500

These two options were proposed during the WG last call on 
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt.

- Default routes

A default routes option is unnecessary because of neighbor discovery/router 
advertisements; is there some other reason to configure a host with default 
routes?

- Static routes

The static routes option has been discussed in the thread "static route 
option for dhcpv6".  The summary of the discussion is that a static routes 
option might be useful to configure a host for tunnels.

Please follow up with comments about whether we should define these two 
options for DHCPv6.

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:56:09 -0500 (EST)

Ralph,

An essential option set for dhc6 is that which will assist with the
deployment of IPv6 immediately.  That is the case for configured tunnels.

Right now I am not convinced that we should add default routes to clients
for dhc6.  Not because they are learned (provided is not the case) by ND,
as I believe the Dentist Office Scenario may justify them or a Home IPv6
Gateway box that wants to provide them instead of the router because it is
not running full routing protocol to learn all routes.  In this case my
ISP tells me my static route and I configure that with DHC6.  The reason
for not doing it now is it requires more analysis and discussion than I
think we should do before final last call and to PS process.  I will argue
that wee should permit this but it will take a long time to discuss.  So
in the interest of moving forward I suggest we not include default routes
for now.

/jim