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

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:48:51 -0500

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" <[email-masked]> 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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:55:58 -0500

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:14:52 -0700

Ralph, what's going on for me is that these documents are being rushed 
through, which is fine, but it means that I haven't had time for a 
thorough review, and I want to do one before responding to the last 
call.   I will try to review them today.   Sorry about the delay.