RE: [dhcwg] BCMCS server option drafts

["Bernie Volz" <[e-mail]>]

Hi:

I believe the original model was for OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS to be similar to
DHCPv4 Vendor class identifier option (option 60) and for OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS
to be similar to DHCPv4 Vendor Specific Information (option 43).

You might refer to draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-03.txt, while for DHCPv4, it does
have some additional information about how the options might be used. That
work is modeled on the DHCPv6 options. In particular, see section 4:

4.  Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option

   DHCP clients and servers may use this option to exchange vendor-
   specific information.  Either party may send this option, as needed.
   While a typical case might be for a client to send the
   Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class option, to elicit a useful
   Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option, there is no
   requirement for such a flow.

It would be good to get general agreement on this as you're perhaps the
first user. And, it would be best to set a "standard" for others to follow.

I kind of liked the DHCPv4 model, as it is much easier and clearly to
understand (and implement for clients and servers):
- A Client includes OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS to identify itself.
- A Client MAY include OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS if it has vendor specific data
(other than classing information) to communicate.
- A Server includes OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS for matching enterprise IDs (and
class data, if appropriate). This is only REQUIRED if the ORO includes the
OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS code (the ORO doesn't say which vendors; that is handled
by OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS).
- I'm not sure why a server would ever need to include OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS,
though perhaps it could tell the client what implementation the server is so
that perhaps the client knows it could use some extended capabilities? Or,
the server could send back whatever the client sent to it?

But, as draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-03.tx states, this is not the only possible
model.

Note that in your case, I would assume that the OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS would
have your enterprise ID and some class information to indicate what
capabilities the client supports (and therefore the server should provide
configuration for in the OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS).

So, this is a good issue for the DHC WG to resolve and clarify for a future
RFC 3315bis.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> On Behalf Of Kuntal Chowdhury
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: Ralph Droms; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] BCMCS server option drafts
> 
> 
> I have a few questions on the possible use of DHCPv6 
> OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS and OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS to request vendor 
> specific info:
> 
> 1. Since the enterprise number is included in 
> OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS, will it suffice to use only this option 
> in the information request message from the DHCP client? Is 
> the use of OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS mandatory while vendor 
> specific options are requested?
> 
> 2. Does the mere inclusion of OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS in the 
> information request message indicate to the DHCP server that 
> the DHCP client is requesting for some specific vendor 
> specific options?
>
> 3. O-R-O has the format where each of requested option codes 
> are listed in it. However, in OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS the 
> encapsulated vendor-specific options field MUST be encoded as 
> a sequence of code/length/value fields. What value does the 
> DHCP client use while requesting for a vendor specific option? 
> 
> These things are not clearly defined in RFC3315.
> 
> Regards,
> Kuntal
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:29 PM
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Subject: RE: [dhcwg] BCMCS server option drafts
> >
> >
> >
> >What about the deployment issue? The 3GGP2 specification will
> >be ratified in November, with deployment following soon.  Some 
> >service providers already have DHCP servers in place that must 
> >be updated for any new options.  The options defined in the 
> >current drafts can likely be supported without code changes to 
> >existing servers, allowing for faster deployment.  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?
> >
> >BTW, we need more discussion of this issue *soon* due to the
> >time constraints of the upcoming 3GPP2 standards process and 
> >deployment.
> >
> >- Ralph
> >
> >At 04:12 PM 10/21/2004 -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
> >>Personally, I'd like to see the DHCPv4 VIVSO get deployed 
> and pushing
> >>these options to using it would be a step at making this 
> >happen (as one
> >>would expect 3GPP2 vendors to have some significant input to the
> >>decisions of DHCP server vendors).
> >>
> >>It also means that 3GPP2 is free to define other VIVSO 
> options in the
> >>future within their own forum and need not go to the IETF 
> >(and DHC WG).
> >>I suspect that this would provide much faster deployment for them in
> >>the future.
> >>
> >>Also, the DHCPv6 OPTION_VENDOR_CLASS and OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS
> >are already
> >>there for DHCPv6.
> >>
> >>BTW, 3GPP2 already has an enterprise-id number:
> >>
> >>5535
> >>   3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2)
> >>     Allen Long
> >>       [e-mail]
> >>
> >>So, they'd be good to go!
> >>
> >>- Bernie
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >> > Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> >> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:35 PM
> >> > To: [e-mail]
> >> > Subject: [dhcwg] BCMCS server option drafts
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We need to have a short WG conversation about two options
> >that were
> >> > discussed at the WG meeting in San Diego.  The outcome of the
> >> > conversation will be to determine consensus about taking 
> on these 
> >> > two
> >> > drafts:
> >> >
> >> > draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv4-option-01.txt
> >> > draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv6-option-01.txt
> >> >
> >> > as dhc WG work items or recommending that 3GPP2 define
> >> > vendor-identifying vendor-specific option (VIVSO; option code
> >> > 125) sub-options to carry the information described in 
> the drafts.
> >> >
> >> > If the WG consensus is to take on the drafts as WG work items
> >> > drafts, are they acceptable as currently published?
> >> >
> >> > Because of the time constraints imposed by the 3GPP2 
> schedule, I'm
> >> > going to cut off discussion on this topic next Thursday, 
> >10/28, and
> >> > determine WG consensus at that time.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > CableLabs has one option with sub-options (RFC 3495) rather than
> >> > multiple options because:
> >> > * wanted to avoid exhaustion of DHCP option code space; 
> >perhaps less
> >> >    of an issue with option code reclassification
> >> > * would have used VIVSO if available
> >> > * use of VIVSO with sub-options would give 3GPP2 freedom
> >to define new
> >> >    sub-options on demand
> >> > Do these considerations have an impact on our decision
> >about how to
> >> > proceed with the 3GPP2 options?
> >> >
> >> > - Ralph
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > dhcwg mailing list
> >> > [e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >dhcwg mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg