Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

<> Fri, 31 January 2014 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75BB1A041B for <>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:22:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.784
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eXvm4bb86Btd for <>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0511A049B for <>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Jan 2014 11:22:28 +0100
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:22:28 +0100
From: <>
To: <>, <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:22:25 +0100
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31
Thread-Index: Ac8d5RCSgcLH78CmTNGFBBg4K4xmdgAiRmxA
Message-ID: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2C8B1418HE111643EMEA1_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:22:36 -0000

+1, with the remaining open comments resolved.


From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Branimir Rajtar
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. Januar 2014 19:00
To: Ole Troan
Cc: DHC WG; Bernie Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

Just to make sure it's clear - I support this document going forward.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ole Troan <<>> wrote:
> One other point regarding Ole's comments below - Ole, I don't think it would be possible to handle IPv4 configuration by just adding a DHCPv6 DHCPv4 container option to encode the various v4 options as some of the information is conveyed in non-option fields in the DHCPv4 (BOOTP) packet. Yes, you could have an option that has those fixed fields followed by a variable length option encoding area, but that seems much more complex than just encoding the DHCPv4 packet (as we are proposing to do with the new DHCPv6 messages). Also, encoding as an option of options would also require piggybacking the request with DHCPv6 requests themselves which has other implications -- so I think that design, while possible, is much less optimum (though we can certainly disagree on this point).
just to make it clear; I do not in any way want to give the impression that I'm in favour of this mode. I'm not.


dhcwg mailing list<>