Re: [dhcwg] Am I missing something?

Eric,

Yourone of the tech leads for SLP and first driver in the IETF for this so
thats fine with me.  ACK.   

Lets put it in DHC6 then.

/jim

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Erik Guttman wrote:

> 
> Jim,
> 
>  > I believe the IETF wants to move to SLP for this.  I think we need to
>  > check.  I just don't want to build competing functions.  If we do it
>  > fine but I think this requires some discussions iwth SLP folks too.
> 
> I must admit it's hard for me to conceive of DHCP without boot
> parameter options.  I guess I'm showing my age.
> 
> SLP is great for discoving 'differentiated' services - that is
> services which are not generic.  Boot images that can be found
> by look-up-by-name are generic.  This does require that DHCP
> servers be configured to know about TFTP servers and their
> contents, but in practice, this has worked out fairly well.
> 
> Boot images which require multiple round trips between client
> and server (as per PXE) are NOT generic and would be better
> discovered via SLP.  [Aside:  PXE uses a hacked set of non-
> standard DHCP messages to perform iterative queries to
> configure a client to boot.]
> 
> Further examples of non-generic services include, say, peer to
> peer file sharing services.  There is no standard way to update
> the DHCP server dynamically, to know which service are available
> on the network, or what (characteristics) differentiates them.
> Clients seeking non-generic services don't want *just any* file
> server, they want the file server with the name, description,
> access permissions, etc. that they are seeking.  This is a great
> application for SLP and an inappropriate one for DHCP.
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> >>We've taken an "on-demand" approach to adding options to DHCPv6 - that is, 
> >>as options are requested, we've added them.  There hasn't been any 
> >>intentional oversight; to avoid carrying forward unnecessary options (e.g., 
> >>"Impress server"), we've simply started with a clean (or almost clean) 
> >>slate.  'bootfile' and 'TFTP server' seem like good candidates for 
> >>inclusion in DHCPv6.
> 
> I would like to see option 78 and 79 for DHCPv6 as well (SLPv2 DA
> and SLPv2 scope list options.)  We are revising RFC2610 as part of
> bringing SLPv2 to draft standard.  I guess we should include a
> description of the DHCPv6 options there as well?  Are there any
> examples of how to do that?  How do you suggest we proceed?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Erik
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg