Skip to main content

Requirements for Extending DHCP into New Environments

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (dhc WG)
Expired & archived
Authors Anthony McAuley , Shinichi Baba , Subir Das , Dr. Yasuro Shobatake
Last updated 2000-03-10
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a widely deployed framework for host registration and configuration [DHC]. DHCP, however, was designed only for fixed hosts on physically secure LANs. Other protocols fill some of the gap. PPP [PPP] is a good solution for many commercial service providers (where framing is needed). Mobile IP [MIP] is ideal for registering and configuring roaming users (when transparent address binding is needed). This still leaves many environments where there is no ideal solution, such as: roaming users who do not need transparent address binding e.g., a mobile web browser), and commercial service providers who want to support home networking with multiple nodes. This draft proposes DHCP as the best protocol to meet these new needs, because it leave open how (and whether) to provide other functions, such as framing (e.g., PPP), locating (e.g., Mobile IP in co-located mode), inter-domain AAA (e.g., [AAAR]), or address distribution (e.g., [DAAP]). We describe and solicit feedback on seven new requirements that would be placed on DHCP to meet these needs.


Anthony McAuley
Shinichi Baba
Subir Das
Dr. Yasuro Shobatake

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)