Re: Fwd: DHCP option - trying again

Hi all,

|
|> From: "Vikram Nair" <[email protected]>
|> Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004  2:09:56 AM US/Eastern
|> To: "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
|> Subject: Re: [midcom] DHCP option - trying again
|> Reply-To: "Vikram Nair" <[email protected]>
|>
|> Hi,
|>
|>     Myself always in favour of autoconfiguration as much
|>     as possible.

I'm too.

|>
|>     No reservation as such to go with extending DHCP. Definitely
|>     a plus for midcom.
|>
|>     But just wondering, IPv6 itself advocates autoconfiguration
|>     of the clients (including next-hops). Why not explore the
|>     extension on the same lines.

Yes, IPv6 does offer stateless autoconfiguration. Anyway, transporting IP 
addresses of MIDCOM-type middleboxes is more a 'service' configuration and 
probably not at the level of IPv6 address autoconfiguration. The MIDCOM 
service would be more like SIP proxy, meaning that this should go to DHCP 
instead of IPv6 autoconfiguration.

Regards,

  Martin

Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories [email protected]
PGP Key at:        http://www.stiemerling.org/stiemerling_nec.gpg
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

|>
|> regards,
|> - Vikram
|>
|> ----- Original Message -----
|> From: "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]>
|> To: <[email protected]>
|> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:30 PM
|> Subject: [midcom] DHCP option - trying again
|>
|>
|>> As I mentioned earlier this week, there's a new proposal to use DHCP
|>> to
|>> configure middlebox addresses into endpoints.  Is this something the
|>> WG
|>> should take on?
|>>
|>> Melinda
|>>
|>>
|>> _______________________________________________
|>> midcom mailing list
|>> [email protected]
|>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
|>>
|>
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| midcom mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom