IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-02.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8024521F9C53 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4IlKE6Ht3Vu for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1729211E81F7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUmgOz489jJNIKt60G8eRq07pV09Y4LSi@postini.com; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:47 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15191B82C9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6974190043; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:00:41 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOveV9LdCzDkpH2UaCUq+BUQ8x75neyEgAgAq37ICAAvvOgIAU/z8AgAFuBwCAAEPYgA==
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:00:41 +0000
Message-ID: <84AB4B8F-8F42-4BC7-A80E-BB42AFE8AE20@nominum.com>
References: <20130930140054.31558.95411.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6A05E003-42A2-4659-9F23-6F5DFC6A88EF@gmx.com> <2C4C5302-C2CA-4F85-B053-78D317FD7964@employees.org> <3A7ED0DA-EE87-496C-AC7D-C4D3D937FB84@gmx.com> <73774E7F-38E3-4F41-822C-093444CA99B1@employees.org> <DBA2C7FA-5C3A-4597-89D6-3310772D39BE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBA2C7FA-5C3A-4597-89D6-3310772D39BE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <BE2FC333AEF23E4AB350EA6A95A59516@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:00:57 -0000

On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Qi] Why static IPv4 address and port-set assignment is 'the most basic case of IPv4 provisioning'? For DHCPv4 (_Dynamic_ Host Configuration Protocol), dynamic assignment of IPv4 is the 'most basic case', IMO.

I think it's really important not to find controversy where none exists.   My understanding is that what Ole is saying here is simply that in cases where no dynamic allocation or extra IPv4 service configuration is needed, DHCPv4 is not needed.   AFAIK that's the consensus expressed by the working group.   Am I missing something here?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email