IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-02.txt

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE6211E8103 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sIbkqT1zwPmO for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com (mail-pb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D81711E82C7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id up7so1650730pbc.26 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WryuXb47swz5THLQEN0Awc13fuI378xE4Nf4k/A0EmU=; b=FKnOX3HmPYEQb+mAhNq8E25mAYJh7RMdQ633vIX5e5mmwLEOfFvhPoObETN40MaYup aI8tmjlgA+GYkVEySSwX/IO7Aj6+iHFc/TX5O4+pNvgPtXV9m8akn224hQHUDA3SC/3B nBA3FzIqhWEmqUfFEILSNhvQz23AfMVGlZ0CCWet/11CRqbnhjX2HaAXuinBHYBNaUs5 dd9P5XR0rhx58R29NWeYFccN3sSNmP1JnjwuC/bwjDxy5xKTUf3UGOx4FHOV9CGwXB7z pfTYQ9J7tJrRGraCku8KP3gHuLzVRAlDvO5Ur+receM37NXmYGV2dFAaxCg/h6Qqmxfh NjQw==
X-Received: by 10.68.244.2 with SMTP id xc2mr1052246pbc.58.1382591957221; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.199.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id er3sm8488104pbb.40.2013.10.23.22.19.15 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <84AB4B8F-8F42-4BC7-A80E-BB42AFE8AE20@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:19:12 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8C8013EA-7A15-4787-B4C0-A282CA02CE4A@gmail.com>
References: <20130930140054.31558.95411.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6A05E003-42A2-4659-9F23-6F5DFC6A88EF@gmx.com> <2C4C5302-C2CA-4F85-B053-78D317FD7964@employees.org> <3A7ED0DA-EE87-496C-AC7D-C4D3D937FB84@gmx.com> <73774E7F-38E3-4F41-822C-093444CA99B1@employees.org> <DBA2C7FA-5C3A-4597-89D6-3310772D39BE@gmail.com> <84AB4B8F-8F42-4BC7-A80E-BB42AFE8AE20@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:19:21 -0000

Dear Ted,

Thanks for the explanation. 


Best Regards,
Qi


On 2013-10-24, at 上午2:00, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Qi] Why static IPv4 address and port-set assignment is 'the most basic case of IPv4 provisioning'? For DHCPv4 (_Dynamic_ Host Configuration Protocol), dynamic assignment of IPv4 is the 'most basic case', IMO.
> 
> I think it's really important not to find controversy where none exists.   My understanding is that what Ole is saying here is simply that in cases where no dynamic allocation or extra IPv4 service configuration is needed, DHCPv4 is not needed.   AFAIK that's the consensus expressed by the working group.   Am I missing something here?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email