RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar-dhc-opt-imap-00.txt
"Cristian Cadar" <Cristian.Cadar@netlab.nec.de> Wed, 09 March 2005 14:49 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10663 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:49:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D92Y2-0001SA-7r for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:52:30 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D92UN-0001fN-VB; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:48:43 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D92UM-0001ep-0z for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:48:42 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10496 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:48:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.40]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D92Wu-0001Og-Di for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:51:24 -0500
Received: from europa.office (europa.office [10.1.1.2]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2ED10EC7; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:51:40 +0100 (CET)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar-dhc-opt-imap-00.txt
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:48:28 +0100
Message-ID: <F0DC7B6021F256408935B31D97FC727EA5A5C7@europa.office>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar-dhc-opt-imap-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcUkLppJ8Jt8Y0QGS1K8CjNHWEb7lwAVeX7wAAvFZEAAAHxL4A==
From: Cristian Cadar <Cristian.Cadar@netlab.nec.de>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, Van Aken Dirk <Dirk.VanAken@thomson.net>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bf422c85703d3d847fb014987125ac48
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a0494a0224ca59418dd8f92694c1fdb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bernie, I have seen clients implementation as well which supported SMTP/POP3 option. I would like to integrate this option in our DHCPv6 full-fletched implementation both in our server and client. Since our prototype is currently tested within the JOIN project (see http://www.electronicsweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=36721& liFlavourID=1 ) we would consider a good idea to delegate this information with DHCPv6 as well. Cristian -----Original Message----- From: Bernie Volz [mailto:volz@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:26 PM To: Cristian Cadar; 'Van Aken Dirk'; 'Ted Lemon' Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar-dhc -opt-imap-00.txt Yes, I'm sure a lot of servers implement it since it really isn't an issue for them to do so - it is just one more IP-address list option. - Do you have a requirement for this option? Are you presently using it for DHCPv4 (I don't just mean configuring in the DHCPv4 server, but expecting clients to make use of it)? - Do you know if it is in actual use (again, clients using the values received from a DHCPv4 server) anywhere? - Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: Cristian Cadar [mailto:Cristian.Cadar@netlab.nec.de] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:06 AM > To: Bernie Volz; Van Aken Dirk; Ted Lemon > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: > [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft -cadar-dhc-opt-imap-00.txt > > Hi there, > > From my experience I know for sure that you can find the SMTP option > in the most DHCP servers for Windows and Unix OS. In my opinion the > usage of this option should be decided by the network administrators. > I don't think that we have a correct survey on how frequently this > option is used in reality. I agree with you that this option is not > heavily used in comparison with the DNS one for instance, but having > this option among the configurable DHCPv6 options would be an asset in > my opinion than a burden. > > Bernie- we can discuss on the format of this option. > > > Cristian > > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Bernie Volz > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:32 PM > To: 'Van Aken Dirk'; 'Ted Lemon'; Cristian Cadar > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: > [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft -cadar-dhc > -opt-imap-00.txt > > In preparing for IETF-62 I dug up this old discussion and I second > Ted's question. I really don't see this as something coming from DHCP > -- it really is specific to the user, not the client, and isn't really > access-point specific (as most DHCP information is). > > As we have DHCPv4 options (69 for SMTP and 70 for POP3), I would first > ask how widely used are these options? Are they supported by any > clients? Are they configured in any DHCPv4 servers? > > If the answer is that they are heavily used, I'm all for adopting them > for DHCPv6. But if the answer is that they're basically never used, > why do you now feel they'll be used for DHCPv6? > > Perhaps at the Thursday AM DHC WG session you can address this usage > question as that might gave the WG important information as to whether > these options are warranted for DHCPv6 or not. > > Also, if we were to consider these options, how about a more general > format so we don't need a new option for every application that comes > along? > > For example, you could define a "default application server option" > which would be formatted as: > well-known-service-port-number (2 bytes) > length or number of addresses to follow (1 or 2 bytes) > ipv6 addresses > And this could repeat. Now we have one option into which we can bundle > up all of the servers and when someone else comes along wanting to > provide clients the addresses for server foo, no new option need be > written (and implemented). > > Well, just an idea ... It does complicate the configuration at the > servers and parsing at the clients. > > > If we do move forward with your work, I'd like to see more explicit > text around ORO requirements. I think this option *MUST* be requested > in the ORO receive from the client before a server would return it. > > - Bernie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > > Of Van Aken Dirk > > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:50 PM > > To: Ted Lemon; Cristian Cadar > > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] > > Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar- > > dhc-opt-imap-00.txt > > > > Hello Ted, Cristian, > > > > See some comments inline. > > > > Best regards - Dirk > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org > > > [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Ted Lemon > > > Sent: vrijdag 30 juli 2004 18:33 > > > To: Cristian Cadar > > > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments > > > ondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-email-00.txt/draft-cadar-dhc-opt- > > > imap-00.txt > > > > > > I guess my first question about this is why? > > > > I assume to come closer to zero-config of hosts and applications I > > would say. > > > > > Why would you want a client to trust the DHCP server to > > tell you what IMAP server to > > > contact? > > > > Is this not true for all options that are returned by a server ? > > > > > What if you wind up talking to a rogue server, or roam to a > > > different network? These don't seem like things that are > > > location-dependent - they seem like things that you want to > > configure > > > on the client and not change as the client moves around. > > > > True, but on the other hand from the perspective of a system admin, > > he/she must use two methods for host/application > configuration. That > > is, a DHCP server for a first set of parameters and scripts or even > > manual config for other parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dhcwg mailing list > > > dhcwg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dhcwg mailing list > > dhcwg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-e… Cristian Cadar
- RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-e… Bernie Volz
- RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-e… Cristian Cadar
- Re: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-e… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-e… Cristian Cadar
- Re: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-e… Ted Lemon
- Re: Re: [dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-o… Daniel Park
- RE: Re:[dhcwg]Commentsondraft-cadar-dhc-dhcpv6-op… Bernie Volz