Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents

[Shubhranshu <shubranshu at gmail.com>]

Hello Charlie, Emmanuel,

Please see inline comments

On 3/19/08, Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli at inria.fr> wrote:
> Hello Charlie,
>
> Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
> >
> > I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to
> > legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND.
> >
> > My own opinion is that there are many instances in which it is not
> > at all appropriate to run DHCP (as currently specified), and that
> > these instances are more common percentagewise, perhaps even
> > predominant, in mobile ad-hoc networks.  Which in no way implies
> > that one should not consider DHCP when appropriate!
> >
> > Maybe instead of arguing over link types, it would be better to
> > have a task force making a report about when DHCP is appropriate,
> > and let the working group get on with other useful work.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Charlie P.
> >
>
>
> I guess the problem statement draft is supposed to identify if/when DHCP
> is appropriate or not. Section 5.1 of the document describes DHCP
> limitations in MANETs, so by contraposition, it also talks about cases
> when DHCP is appropriate in MANETs ;)

Section 3 does a good separation between autonomous and subordinate
MANET. In the autonomous MANET, no DHCP server would be available and
thus node needs to rely on some other approach to configure
addresses/prefixes. On the other hand in the subordinate MANET,
availability of DHCP server can be assumed and thus a MANET node could
contact it (directly or via relay agent) for configuration of
addresses/prefixes.

- Shubhranshu

>
> Maybe modifications to Section 5 would be a a good starting point to
> address the subject?
>
> Emmanuel
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf