Why not RIO? (Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Nov 20 05:23:57 CET 2011


On 2011-11-20 15:52, Jussi Peltola wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 02:20:56AM +0000, Olipro wrote:
>> In order to receive DHCPv6 configuration information, an RA *must* be
>> sent indicating its presence; given that you can of course put the
>> default route info in the RA, why do you also want routing
>> configuration info in DHCP? if you need to have that sort of detail,
>> what you need is a routing protocol.
> You want to run a routing protocol on hosts? Are you going to add knobs
> to DHCP to configure it? Or walk to every host when you want to
> reconfigure the routing protocol?
> If I want to centrally configure hosts' networking settings, what I need
> is DHCP. I have yet to see a routing protocol that is remotely
> configured, nor would I want to see that in a routing protocol.

When you write "hosts'" do you mean that you need to configure
each individual host's routing information *separately*?

If the answer is yes, what is the reason use case for needing to configure
each host separately?

If the answer is no, why can't RA/RIO (RFC 4191) be used?

Precise answers to these questions will help to make progress
in the IETF discussion on this over the next few days.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list