Subject: [dhcwg] Last Call: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:45:53 -0400

The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration
Working Group to consider Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6) <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-24.txt> as a Proposed Standard.  

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the 
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by May 15, 2002.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-24.txt

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 17:01:05 +0300 (EEST)

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-24.txt

IPv6 working group has discussed a possibility of using a light-weight
DHCPv6 solution for e.g. DNS configuration, but nothing related to address
allocation.

I threw up this idea and there was some support for it.  Many people are a 
bit unconfortable with "legacy" parts of DHCPv6, that aren't really all 
that necessary with IPv6.  And these features are the ones that most 
people will not need.

So I see two practical approaches:

 1) separate the draft to:
    a) Dynamic Node Configuration Protocol, which is used for 
Informational Records only (the main specification)
    b) XXX, which is used when one wants the "stateful" parts, e.g. 
address allocation.

   This has the great benefit that when the vast majority of people are
   only interested about a), the base specification would become very 
   simple and relatively short.

   The drawback naturally is that this requires more work..

 2) after publishing the draft as is, later come back and specify
   which parts of the DHCPv6 protocol to implement to get either a).

   This has the drawback that those that are only intrerested about the
   lightweight solution have to go through the whole of DHCPv6, and
   that conceptually separating the two might be difficult.

Needless to say, I'm in the favor of 1); I've never been a big fan of 
the idea behind DHCPv6, but this way I'd find it rather interesting, for 
solving the initial configuration problem.

--8<--
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:09:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Stateless DHCP and the DHCP draft

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...
--8<--

-- 
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

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 02:03:19 -0400

Pekka - thanks for your feedback on the DHCPv6 draft.  I'm working
on a document that describes the messages and options of DHCPv6 that
would be required for DNS configuration.  I expect to publish the
document in a few days.

- Ralph