[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comment: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01.txt



The dhc WG considered two ways to go about defining options
in DHCPv6:

- carry forward all of the existing DHCPv4 options
- define DHCPv6 options "on demand" as specific
  requirements are recognized

The WG decided to adopt the second strategy, so the base
DHCPv6 specification includes all of the options needed
for the basic DHCPv6 machinery, and some additional
options have been defined in several other drafts.

If there are specific options for which we can identify
requirements, we can start the process to define those
options...

- Ralph

At 09:24 PM 7/22/2003 +0900, itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
>> line 397 (3.2.1)
>>      i don't think there's enough specification for DHCPv6 options to
>>      replace bootp as a whole.
>
>I don't know bootp in particular, but I'd bet DHCPv6 provides enough of
>options to provide for bootp functionality.  Do you have some particular
>options in mind?  DHCPv4 certainly has quite a bit more of them than
>DHCPv6, though.

        most importantly, boot file name ("file" in RFC951 page 4).

itojun