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

Branimir Rajtar <branimir.rajtar.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 30 January 2014 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <branimir.rajtar.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3CB1A0417 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZPHobaBw-jO for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2111A03E0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so6820210wgh.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=k2a2oKJ6s1hxMFG854DC9FkxxRYusFqFrvyW7cXrlyA=; b=jhbd5g/oTZbUgBaS+Ofaf8vWY+hQCTqXVB1I0JXPiJN5AO7ymDX932E4lB2ensNTlE 6+tcTJ4tDeVoK/wc6AApj1ZdJWW8x9YIzycJMBdBwUn2CBHqfzZM4hql3ddb5w5b5U08 5BBYluiAXjXSBm2iE2P+wTEaUQWOTqNpa2rQ492V847ksdKruwJ6eRe9QkvsDhmo7/8k kbYgnTvbX3wTmUD038BEzUrOrXYQDFsvEs2y0i5eWGFiVkSy9WrNxu3UCtmlw+PLhm+X /6EPe5pKIVT6MB/FkDMkfJ30X3c5nwCzpNW5JaBjFYcJWV8N2Llm6Wd49pk79Ula0irT /8eA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.105.41 with SMTP id gj9mr24257999wib.28.1391104777870; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.137.206 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:59:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <24BE0C19-3309-4E94-BD56-394D695298CF@employees.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE3AD04@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <24BE0C19-3309-4E94-BD56-394D695298CF@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:59:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEUFpyx6M-6NrziokGzMFRV7xPGX7-H6GaYc=1trq_MOjMbaiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Branimir Rajtar <branimir.rajtar.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442826221643704f133d241
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:59:43 -0000

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

Branimir


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> 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.
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>