Subject: [dhcwg] Dual-stack hosts using DHCP as dhc WG charter item

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:03:38 -0500

Here is proposed text for a dhc WG charter item to address dual-stack hosts
using DHCP:

Hosts that include implementations of both IPv4 and IPv6 ("dual-stack
hosts") may use DHCP to obtain configuration settings (including
assigned addresses) for both IPv4 and IPv6.  The DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
specifications (RFC2131, RFC2132, RFC3315 and subsequent RFCs) do not
explicitly explain how a dual-stack host uses DHCP to obtain
configuration settings for both IP stacks. The dhc WG will assess the
requirements for a dual-stack host to use DHCP to obtain configuration
settings for both IPv4 and IPv6, review alternative solutions and
select a solution, and develop, review and publish a document that
defines the chosen solution.

Please respond with comments to the dhcwg mailing list.

- Ralph

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

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:07:23 -0600

> Here is proposed text for a dhc WG charter item to address dual-stack 

The text looks fine to me, and I think we need to do this work.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:26:47 -0500

Regardless of whether we decide to add the issue of dual-stack hosts to the
dhc WG charter, we have two drafts in the IESG today that have "Discuss" notes:

   Simple Network Time Protocol Configuration Option for DHCPv6
   draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00

   NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6
   draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-05

The WG needs to decide how to proceed with these two drafts.  So, I would
like to determine WG consensus on the following questions:

1. Does the WG want to request the IESG to advance the drafts unchanged?
2. If the answer to 1 is no, does the WG want to revise the drafts
    in parallel with the resolution of the dual-stack hosts issue, or does
    the WG want to postpone advancement of these drafts until the
    dual-stack hosts issue is resolved?

- Ralph

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:30:30 -0600

Isn't the problem with the nis draft a question of whether it really 
needs that section that says in what packet types the option is 
allowed?

Personally, I think we should advance the drafts unchanged - I don't 
see how a solution to the dual-stack issue is going to work if it 
requires that all the existing option drafts be changed, and 
furthermore I don't really see a reason why we'd do it that way even if 
it were an option.

I think it might be worth discussing whether or not there's a better 
way to handle the "this option allowed in packets of type X" 
boilerplate, though, without holding this draft hostage to the 
discussion.