Subject: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous way forward

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:11:22 +0200

WG MIF,

Excuse me if I repeat myself.

I wanted to share explicitely a possible way forward that I discussed
with a number of colleagues, and that looked advantageous on our side:

- draft route-option would do all routes except default route.
- draft drlo would do only default route and no generic route.

This would satisfy the requirement of only one means to achieve one goal.

(I have discussed this privately with Tomasz, I think I rememember not
agreement; but I would dare now to try ask other opionion from WG
members - what do you think?)

Yours,

Alex

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:27:12 -0400

> - draft drlo would do only default route and no generic route.

I've been watching the discussion unfold. I am still unconvinced of any
benefit of this proposal.

Furthermore, I think there has been enough discussion at this point. We
should move on.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:32:49 +0000

> members - what do you think?)

Maximilian quite eloquently explained the needless additional complexity introduced by the default route option.   He didn't point out that in order for the route lifetime field to be meaningful, changes would have to be made to the DHCPv6 client state machine, but this is also true.

It seems really clear cut to me: the route option is simpler, and does everything we need, and so that is what we should use going forward.   I also agree with Simon that this has been discussed to death.