Subject: RE: [dhcwg] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-volz-dhc-rapidreply-opt-00.txt

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:35:01 -0800

Daniel, Bernie--

is there sufficient demand for a DHCPv4 solution to highly mobile devices
that this option is necessary?  I don't object to this proposed option, but
I do wonder if a DHCPv4 solution is merely a stopover on the road to DHCPv6?

Is there any benefit to somehow restricting its use to avoid a large-scale
migration from the Discover-Offer-Request-Ack cycle to the abbreviated
exchange?  Should we be developing what I see as an alternative to
Mobile-IP?

I'd like to see an updated client state transition diagram showing this
exchange and updated message required field and option content tables
covering the DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPACK message changes when you update the
draft.

--Barr

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

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:25:30 -0500

Barr:

These are good questions and should be addressed. I don't have any specific
case where the Rapid Reply is really desired. As far as restrictions, I
would expect any migration would be slow (because of the large deployed
client base) and servers should be configurable as to whether they allow it
to be used - such as in cases where multiple servers exist (though coupled
with failover, this option could be very useful to expedite configuration).
Regarding an updated state diagram and processing description, we should
provide that (though there are others that have indicated they'd rather not
have state diagrams).

Daniel will present this work at the DHC WG meeting next week and we'll
revise the draft with that input and any Mailing List input (such as yours).
This assumes that the general consensus is work should continue on this.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barr
Hibbs
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-volz-dhc-rapidreply-opt-00.txt

Daniel, Bernie--

--Barr

---

From: Greg Kilfoyle <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Nov 2003 07:46:24 -0800

Hi Daniel,

I'm afraid I'm not (yet) familiar with the IPv6 rapid reply mechanism
and I'm only slowly coming up to speed on some of DHC drafts that are
out there.

Could you please clarify what sort of environment needs this mechanism?

In well set up dhcp environments the entire 4-message dhcp exchange can
be done in under 1 second, or at most a few seconds. Maybe the
environments you are working with do not have this behavior.

Cheers, Greg.
-- 
Greg Kilfoyle <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:58:12 -0800

Bernie--

I can definitely see how this proposal could be of value in certain
circumstances, so thanks for considering my questions!

--Barr

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:16:14 +0900

Hello Barr

Thanks your good questions and inputs. 
Bernie and I will consider yours in the revised draft as well.

>Should we be developing what I see as an alternative to
>Mobile-IP?

My understanding is that MIP is not used for a host at this stage.
Generally we may make use of IP addresses from dhcp server
in the wireless environment (wireless lan is described in this draft)

Comments ?

Regards

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics