Subject: Stateless DHCP and the DHCP draft

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:09:14 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

Would it make sense to consider whether separating "stateless DHCPv6" and
the stateful part (~address assignment) to separate drafts would make
sense?

I think a lot more people would be confortable with DHCPv6 if it was very
simple and supported only the informational records most people would only
use.. and stateful address and such specified in a separate draft?

Just a thought...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:20:46 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> the stateful part is "dynamic address allocation", not "address
assignment" (and this is not a detail, i.e. DHCP is not BOOTP).

=> I fully agree and IMHO the "stateless DHCPv6" should be taken
into account only when this will be done.

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: of course the name (stateless DHCPv6) is the first thing to change (:-)!

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:24:43 -0800

Pekka,

I like the idea of stateless DHCP for defaults configuration. Maybe
separating them would be the right thing, as long as it is clear that a
combined addrconf + defaults conf implementation is possible so not to
negatively impact near term deployment prospects.

            jak

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:29:29 -0500

Pekka,

Thanks for the suggestion about separating the drafts.  There is a need to 
more clearly specify what is required for "configuration-only" DHCP 
service.  (There is also a need for a better name; suggestions, anyone?)

I agree with Bernie that writing two separate specs wouldn't be a good 
idea; I think there would be a lot of overlap between the two specs.

What about an "applicability statement" (in a separate doc) that describes 
in detail how a "configuration-only" client and server would operate?  It 
might be as simple as "implement these sections of the DHCPv6 spec"?

- Ralph