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

Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs Configuration Payload

To: Gregory Lebovitz <Gregory@netscreen.com>
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs Configuration Payload
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:02:27 -0400
cc: "'jknowles@SonicWALL.com'" <jknowles@SonicWALL.com>, Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com, tytso@mit.edu, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:36:12 PDT." <541402FFDC56DA499E7E13329ABFEA87E66C6D@SARATOGA.netscreen.com>
Reply-to: sommerfeld@east.sun.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> > Lately, I've been wondering if we can't just add an optional
> > DHCP CP payload type.  Not sure if that would make everybody
> > happy or make everybody mad.
> > 
> 
> That is what Darren Dukes and I proposed in the doc we wrote and presented
> in SF. Send a DHCP server addr in CP along w/ IP and DNS/WINS (if needed)
> and do the rest of the DHCP extensions via INFORM in protected by CHILD-SA.

no, that's not the same thing.

References:
- RE: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs Configuration Payload
  - From: Gregory Lebovitz <Gregory@netscreen.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Confirm decision on identity handling.
Next by Date: RE: [rohc] RE: (in)security of ESP with header compression
Prev by thread: RE: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs Configuration Payload
Next by thread: RE: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs Configuration Payload
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread