[dhcwg] draft-chown-dhc-dual-stack-00

Changming Liu <cliu@netscreen.com> Wed, 03 March 2004 02:29 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21917 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:29:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyM84-00021P-3o for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:00 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i232T0pn007770 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:29:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyM83-00021F-U7 for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:28:59 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21896 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:28:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyM81-0000Vr-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:28:57 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyM73-0000MD-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:27:57 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyM6G-0000EF-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:27:08 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyM6B-0001gt-71; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:27:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AyM65-0001fv-Jm for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:26:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21725 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:26:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyM62-0000Cy-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:26:54 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AyM56-00004M-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:25:57 -0500
Received: from [63.126.135.18] (helo=mail2.netscreen.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AyM4A-0007dU-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:24:58 -0500
Received: from ns-ca.netscreen.com (ns-ca-local [10.100.3.35]) by mail2.netscreen.com (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i232OS9u006136 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:24:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by NS-CA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <FV1JR07T>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:24:28 -0800
Message-ID: <1B6D4CAFB8CA554EB1A0925685A07DFC0342C68F@MONTEREY.netscreen.com>
From: Changming Liu <cliu@netscreen.com>
To: "'dhcwg@ietf.org'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-chown-dhc-dual-stack-00
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:24:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60

I've read the draft and I agree that there is an issue. But this issue is
not a protocol related per say but local administative one because It can be
simply solved buy the local configuration.

Lots of folks also come from routing world. There may be several IGP running
in one AS such as RIP/OSPF. The same route (the equilvent config info in
DHCP case) can be learned by RIP and OSPF. How does the router solve this
preblom? Nobody has suggested to change the routing protocol. The problem is
solved by Administrative Distance in case of Cisco and other vendors use
similar approach. It becomes purely a local matter.

One way to solve this problem, similar to routing, is to assign a repference
to each DHCP instance. This can be done in two ways, either on the client or
on the server. If on the server, the DHCP protocols need to be enhanced to
carry this info in the message so that client can make informed decision.
The drawback is, how can you con-ordinate the settings of DHCP servers
especially when they may be multi-homed? Another way is that DHCP client
implementation should be flexible enough to allow the local admin to assign
the value to each DHCP client if multiple clients exist. This waay, it
becomes a completely local matter.

BTW we have implemented both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 client and server on our
dual-stack devices and we offer the user the preference options.

Just another way to look at this problem.


Changming Liu
Netscreen technologies.  

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