Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP Solution for SADR

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 11:41:15 -0500

Hi all,

I submitted my proposed DHCPv6 solution for SADR, it can found below.

Kind regards,

Behcet

A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-dhc-6man-dhcpv6-sadr-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-sarikaya-dhc-6man-dhcpv6-sadr
Revision:       01
Title:          DHCPv6 Solution for Source Address Dependent Routing
Document date:  2015-05-08
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          14
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sarikaya-dhc-6man-dhcpv6-sadr-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-dhc-6man-dhcpv6-sadr/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-dhc-6man-dhcpv6-sadr-01
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sarikaya-dhc-6man-dhcpv6-sadr-01

Abstract:
   This document describes DHCPv6 solution for provisioning DHCPv6
   client nodes for the next hop, IPv6 route prefixes and source
   address/prefixes the next hop supports.  Using these options, an
   operator can configure multi-homed nodes where other means of source
   address dependent route configuration may be impractical.

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:37:13 +0900

>    address dependent route configuration may be impractical.

Behcet,

looks like this option still has the same drawback (no fate sharing) that
raised so much opposition in your previous RA-based SADR draft.

In addition, it has the drawback that it is much harder to give hosts
updated route information, because RECONFIGURE is optional, and does not
work if the server crashes and loses state.

Given that the previous draft encountered so much opposition, why introduce
this new document, given that the properties of the option it introduces
are worse?

Regards,
Lorenzo