Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:05:57 -0400

I support this document and would like to see it move forward.

A few minor comments:

- Section 3.3 "Multiple interfaces", I don't quiet get the connection
between this section and mentioning DHCPv6 DUIDs. Perhaps the
implication is that a DHCPv4 client has multiple identities, while a
DHCPv6 client only has one? Though I'm not sure how this is relevant?

Even in DHCPv6 where there is one identity for a client, a multi-homed
host may get information from several different servers so if there is
any implied advantage in DHCPv6 from a single client identity, I don't
see how it helps.

So, I would recommend dropping the text:
   "DHCPv6 introduces the idea of a DHCP
   Unique Identifier (DUID) which does not yet exist for DHCP; some
   effort is being made to retrofit the concept to DHCPv4 [6]."

- Section 3.6 "Protocol startup", doesn't a similar issue apply when
information is refreshed because of renewals? Some information may
appear that previously wasn't available (or similarily be removed).
Similarily, a protocol may be shut down while a client is running?

- Section 4.1 has two quotes following "DHCPv6" in the last paragraph:
"prefer DHCPv6"", 

- Section 4.2 "Single DHCPv6 server" should be retitled "Single DHCP
server" or perhaps "Combined DHCPv4/v6 Server"? (Note that the last
paragraph of Section 1 defines terminology - "DHCP server" means DHCPv4,
"DHCPv6 server" means DHCPv6.

While this is NOT a direct comment on the draft, I wonder whether we
could specify running the DHCPv6 protocol over either IPv4 or IPv6. That
way, we could define DHCPv6 to provide IPv4 configuration information,
and a node could use either IPv4 or IPv6 to send the requests. We would
have to work out some details, such as how IPv4 communication works.

- Section 4.4 "Administrative and other areas": What is really meant by
"the non-aligned option numbers for DHCP and DHCPv6." We never attempted
to align option numbers between the protocols. I think the intent was to
say that there may be options defined in one DHCP version that are not
available in the other? So, how about ", or the lack of a comparable
option in both DHCP versions"?

- Section 5 "Summary", should
   "However, for general
   operation some best practice should be agreed, "
Be:
   "However, for general
   operation some best practice should be agreed on,

I'm also not certain who should be agreeing on these (the DHC WG)? And,
the next sentence seems to imply this is a site's choice while this
certainly can't be the case for changes to the DHCPv6 protocol to allow
configuration for IPv4:

   the principle choice
   being whether separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers should be maintained
   by a site, or whether DHCPv6 should be extended to carry IPv4
   configuration settings for dual-stack nodes.
 
But it isn't so bad if one reads on?

Anyway, none of the above are significant and you can take them or leave
the text as is.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03
> 
> 
> This message announces a WG last call on "DHCP: IPv4 and IPv6
> Dual-Stack Issues" <draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03>.  The last call will
> conclude at 1700 EDT (USA) on 2005-08-09.
> 
> Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
> document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
> support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not
> represent positive support.  If there is no expression of support for
> acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced
> to the IESG.
> 
> Summary: A node may have support for communications using IPv4 and/or
> IPv6 protocols.  Such a node may wish to obtain IPv4 and/or IPv6
> configuration settings via the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
> (DHCP).  The original version of DHCP (RFC 2131) designed for IPv4 has
> now been complemented by a new DHCPv6 (RFC 3315) for IPv6.  This
> document describes issues identified with dual IP version DHCP
> interactions, the most important aspect of which is how to handle
> potential problems in clients processing configuration information
> received from both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers.  The document makes a
> recommendation on the general strategy on how best to handle such
> issues, and identifies future work to be undertaken.
> 
> This draft is available as
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03.txt
> 
> - Ralph Droms 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg