[dhcwg] dhc-mip-fa draft

Sivasundar Ramamurthy <sramam@cup.hp.com> Wed, 20 March 2002 22:14 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17025 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:14:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA17903 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:14:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17614; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:10:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17588 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:10:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from palrel11.hp.com (palrel11.hp.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16833 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:10:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hpindsra.cup.hp.com (hpindsra.cup.hp.com []) by palrel11.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B8360090C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpindsra (hpindsra []) by hpindsra.cup.hp.com with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id OAA20028; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:09:54 -0800
From: Sivasundar Ramamurthy <sramam@cup.hp.com>
X-Sender: sramam@hpindsra
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: sramam@cup.hp.com
Message-ID: <Pine.HPX.4.10.10203201353300.19973-100000@hpindsra>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [dhcwg] dhc-mip-fa draft
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org


I am a Mobile IP implementor and am quite a novice in DHC. I missed
asking this question during the WG session this morning.

Does the information about the FA in the FA Option include any dynamic
info, like challenge values (or even busy bit)?

If so, then it seems that the DHCP server needs to maintain a dynamic
info base for the FA. If this is implicit, then is the mechnism to
update the FA info at the DHCP server left as an implementation issue?



ps: I am not part of the DHC mailing list, so please include my email
address in your reply!

dhcwg mailing list