Communicate the gateway to the clients

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Enno Rey <erey at ernw.de> wrote:

> > Not yet. There's work underway to fix that omission:
>
> not sure if everybody here agrees with the term "omission". not sure if
> the "fix" from
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option will ever
> see the light of the world (read: be ratified) either.
>

Yep. I for one do not agree that it's an omission. I think that the
semantics of DHCPv6 are less well-suited for routing information than RAs,
because they are less dynamic (no deprecation), don't have fate-sharing,
and support only one source of truth. It seems to me that the only
advantage of using DHCPv6 is operational consistency with IPv4, and IMO
that's not a good enough reason to give up those advantages.


> Given this is an ops mailing list, this discussion might be ill-suited
> here. Just want to avoid that Andreas gets some hope that turns out to be
> unrealistic...
>

+1. Given that there is disagreement in the IETF, you might have to wait a
long time before the DHCPv6 route option is standardized, and it might not
happen at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20121121/4d8de89f/attachment.htm>