Skip to main content

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP): IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues
RFC 4477

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from rdroms@cisco.com, venaas@uninett.no to rdroms@cisco.com
2006-05-09
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2006-05-09
04 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4477' added by Amy Vezza
2006-05-05
04 (System) RFC published
2006-02-23
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-02-21
04 David Kessens
[Ballot comment]
Comments received from the Ops Directorate by Pekka Savola:

This seemed to be a relatively good document.  More or less editorial
comments below. …
[Ballot comment]
Comments received from the Ops Directorate by Pekka Savola:

This seemed to be a relatively good document.  More or less editorial
comments below.

(in Section 5)
  On reflection on the above observations, it was the strong consensus
  of the dhc WG to adopt the two-server approach (separate DHCP and
  DHCPv6 servers) in favour to a combined, single server returning IPv4
  information over IPv6.  The two servers may be co-located on a single
  node, and may have consistent configuration information generated
  from a single asset database.

==> this is the first time you mention that DHC WG has already made a
decision on this.  Making this more prominent earlier in the spec (e.g.,
abstract, introduction, section 4.1/4.2) would probably be useful.

If the goal of this to-be-RFC is to document issues and discussions for
historical reference and further development, some minor rewording could be
helpful.

mostly editorial
----------------

==> please remove references from the abstract.

  These protocols allow nodes to communicate via IPv4 or IPv6 to
  retrieve configuration settings for operation in a managed
  environment

==> s/IPv6/IPv6 (respectively)/, otherwise this could be read that DHCPv4
would also support v6, or DHCPv6 support v4.

  While there is a more general multihoming issue to be solved for DHC,
  in this text we focus on the specific issues for operating DHCP in a
  mixed (typically dual-stack) IPv4 and IPv6 environment.

==> you mention 'multihoming' in two occasions, but don't really include
enough context to convey what you're talking about.  The last paragraph
of section 5 makes this a bit clearer; maybe reordering text or making a
separate subsection on multihoming would help.

  The DNS search path may vary for administrative reasons.  For
  example, a site under the domain foo.com chooses to place an early
  IPv6 deployment under the subdomain ipv6.foo.com, until it is
  confident of offering a full dual-stack service under its main
  domain.  The subtlety here is that the DNS search path then affects
  choice of protocol used, such as IPv6 for nodes in ipv6.foo.com.

==> s/foo.com/example.com/, s/chooses/may choose/ ?

==> btw, a related issue (similar text in 1st paragraph of section 4.4)
has been discussed briefly in section 4.2 of
draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-12.txt (in rfc-ed queue).

The
  principle operational choice is whether separate DHCP and DHCPv6
  servers should be maintained by a site, or whether DHCPv6 should be
  extended to carry IPv4 configuration settings for dual-stack nodes.

==> is this only an operational choice?  it's probably also an
implementation and specification choice.
2006-02-21
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2006-02-21
04 David Kessens Created "Approve" ballot
2006-02-20
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-02-20
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-02-20
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-02-17
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-02-17
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-02-16
2006-02-16
04 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-02-15
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2006-02-15
04 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2006-02-10
04 Margaret Cullen Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman
2006-02-10
04 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman
2006-02-10
04 Margaret Cullen Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman
2006-02-10
04 Margaret Cullen Created "Approve" ballot
2006-02-10
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-02-10
04 (System) Last call text was added
2006-02-10
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-01-30
04 Margaret Cullen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-02-16 by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-30
04 Margaret Cullen State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-25
04 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2005-10-27
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-04.txt
2005-07-13
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03.txt
2004-10-28
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-02.txt
2004-07-20
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-01.txt
2004-03-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-00.txt