[dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 24 November 2004 21:50 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07218 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CX56O-0007bH-Vu for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:55:06 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CX50h-0005YJ-PY; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:49:11 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CX4zC-00054s-If for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:47:38 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07029 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:47:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CX538-0007X8-8W for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:51:43 -0500
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2004 14:53:03 +0000
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iAOLl0AC028834 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:47:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com (sjc-vpn5-826.cisco.com [10.21.91.58]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id ANH03438; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:47:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20041124152943.020fab50@flask.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@flask.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:46:56 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
The dhc WG has been asked to consider two drafts, draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv4-option-01.txt and draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv6-option-01.txt, for acceptance as WG work items. There has been some discussion of these two drafts, starting at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg04124.html. There has been no objection to the primary purpose of these drafts, and the discussion has focused on whether the options defined as in the two drafts or should they be redefined to be carried as vendor-identifying vendor-specific options. As we have a fairly tight deadline for moving forward on these drafts, I have decided to accept the drafts as WG work items. We still need to come to consensus as to the decision about how to define the options. Reiterating from my previous e-mail about the options, here are some considerations for discussion: 3GPP2 has defined some vendor-specific sub-options, for example, to identify a MIP home agent for the DHCP client. A 3GPP2 client needs to specify to the DHCP server which parameters it needs - specifically, whether it needs to receive the BCMCS servers. If the current drafts are adopted, the client can simply use the parameter request list option (option code 55) for the request. If a VIVSO sub-option is used, 3GPP2 would also define a parameter request list sub-option. There is a deployment issue, as some service providers already have DHCP servers in place that must be updated for any new options. Is it the case that the options defined in the current drafts can be supported without code changes to existing servers? Use of a VIVSO sub-option would require code changes to existing servers. How long would it take to deploy DHCP server that can support VIVSO. BCMCS may be adopted across multiple technologies, so the options in the current drafts would not be specific to 3GPP2. However, the BCMCS specification has not adopted by other standards, yet, so we may need to define additional options for related services in the future if those services are not interoperable with the 3GPP2 BCMCS service. - Ralph _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.t… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… David W. Hankins
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… David W. Hankins
- [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.t… Ralph Droms
- [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.t… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Parviz Yegani
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Parviz Yegani
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-… AC Mahendran