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

[Brian E Carpenter]

Jussi,

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.

   Brian