Subject: RE: [dhcwg] static route option for dhcpv6

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:30:28 -0700 (MST)

> From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
> To: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

> > Doesn't IPv6 have an equivalent to the router discovery protocol?
>
> Router discovery via NDP.

Was my point about the proposed DHCP option clear?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

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

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:43:41 -0700 (MST)

> From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>

> ...
> If we do want to include it, questions to ponder:
> - Should any lifetimes be associated with the routes? Either one
> lifetime for all routes or each route?
> - Should this option be encapsulated within an IA? That way, it
> would be renewed with the IA.
>  
> I myself am leaning more towards recommending we wait until a need is found.

Perhaps another way of saying the same thing is "are you sure you want
to make DHCP into a routing protocol?"  In practice, the IPv4 router
discovery protocol has plenty of problems that a DHCP client really
doesn't need.

I say this as the author of the `routed` in FreeBSD, NetBSD, and some
commercial UNIX brands (yes, plural).  Part of my excuse for the
from-scratch rewrite of Sam Leffler's primordial code was to support
IRDP, because the consensus wisdom was that IRDP was better than RIP
as a router discovery protocol.  A naive (on my part) result is that
the commonly distributed `routed` prefers IRDP.  In the simplest cases,
it might well be true that IRDP is a better router discovery protocol
than RIP, but it turns out that there are quite common less simple
cases where RIP is clearly better.  I wonder if those who want to make
DHCP into an router discovery protocol have much experience with IRDP
with multi-homed hosts and other minor complications.