Re: [dhcwg] WG last calls on several WG documents

Said - I left out one piece of information: the discussion about
draft-shen-dhc-block-alloc-00 took place just prior to and during the dhc WG
meeting in Seoul (2004).

- Ralph

On 11/21/06 6:48 AM, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:

> Said - I reviewed my notes and archives; if I have it right, the dhc WG
> discussed draft-shen-dhc-block-alloc-00 and its relationship to
> draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.  There was consensus to form a team to
> review the two drafts and come to a recommendation about how to proceed.  I
> asked for volunteers but I don't think I got any response.  At that point, I
> didn't follow up due to lack of interest.
> 
> Stig and I need to review our notes and archives and reread the two drafts.
> Other WG input is welcome.
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
> On 11/19/06 6:44 PM, "Said Ouissal" <souissal@redback.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ralph,
>> 
>> At 12:15 16-11-2006, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>> draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04
>>>   Subnet Allocation Option
>>>   Need to review IPR claims related to this document
>> 
>> One action item which remains open with regards to this draft was the
>> discussion (and decision) of merging this draft with the micro-block
>> allocation draft (draft-shen-dhc-block-alloc-00.txt).
>> 
>> To refresh your mind, the view carried by the authors of the
>> micro-block allocation draft is that while
>> draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 addresses the ability to assign a
>> subnet to a dhcp client, it does not well enough address the ability
>> to assign a subnet to a DHCP proxy or a "remote DHCP server", which
>> in turn can re-assign single IPs to clients. Especially if this DHCP
>> proxy is co-located within an edge router, it allows for more
>> efficient provisioning and network routing information annoucement
>> for reachability reasons.
>> 
>> To be more precise, draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 does address the
>> ability to request a subnet (as a client) so that it can be then
>> servicing (mentioned in the draft as hierarchical DHCP servers) other
>> clients, the main difference is that for Micro-Block the mode of
>> operation is based around an intermediate DHCP proxy agent who
>> leverages option 82 field and piggy-backs on a true client DHCP IP
>> address assignment process. This is a more simple mode of operation
>> and does not require a DHCP client operating on the intermediate
>> router/agent.
>> 
>> Tx,
>> Said. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

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