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

[jknowles@SonicWALL.com]

Hi Gregory,

Well, I probably wasn't clear, but I wasn't referring
to sending the server addr.  I'd like to see a CP
payload type that encapsulates the DHCP.  Tunnelling
DHCP in CP in IKE.  Getting kinda waist-deep here, but
it gives me what I'd like, which is a way to get a
DHCP packet generated by the OS over to the DHCP server.

Just to clarify Ted's list, without this mechanism, I'd
vote for DHCP-over-IKE, as CP alone does not provide
what I want.

Regards,

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Lebovitz [mailto:Gregory@netscreen.com]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:36 PM
To: Jim Knowles; Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com; tytso@mit.edu
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com; owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: RE: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs Configuration Payload




> -----Original Message-----
> From: jknowles@SonicWALL.com [mailto:jknowles@SonicWALL.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com; tytso@mit.edu
> Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com; owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: RE: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: DHCP over IKE vs 
> Configuration Payload
> 
--SNIP--

> 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.