DHCP Usage and Future Requirements Survey

1. Introduction

Thank you for completing the ISC DHCP Survey. ISC is looking for your feedback both on your current DHCP use, and features you would be interested in both for the future of DHCP 4.x, and for our upcoming ground-up rewrite of DHCP in BIND 10.

Question Title

* 1. Please tell us about yourself

Name: *

Company:

Address 1:

Address 2:

City/Town:

State/Province:

ZIP/Postal Code:

Country:

Email Address: *

Phone Number:

Question Title

* 2. I represent a (select as many as apply):

ISC DHCP Support Customer

ISC DHCP Forum Member

Other sort of ISC Customer

Operating System DHCP Maintainer

Appliance Vendor

other (please specify)

Question Title

* 3. Please describe your DHCP usage, whether you repackage for an OS, appliance, or other vendor, and what type of network you run.

Question Title

* 4. What version(s) of ISC DHCP are you currently using?

DHCP 3.0 or previous

DHCP 3.1.1

DHCP 3.1-ESV

DHCP 4.0.x

DHCP 4.1.x or 4.1-ESV

DHCP 4.2.x

additional comments

Question Title

* 5. What is your organizational or product plan for upgrading DHCP? What other roadmap information or constraints for your organization might affect your DHCP upgrade decisions?

Question Title

* 6. Please rate your use of current DHCP features below

	Basic Client functions	Basic Server functions	Basic Relay functions	DDNS	DHCP v6	Dual Stack	OMAPI	Failover
This is mission critical for us	This is mission critical for us Basic Client functions	This is mission critical for us Basic Server functions	This is mission critical for us Basic Relay functions	This is mission critical for us DDNS	This is mission critical for us DHCP v6	This is mission critical for us Dual Stack	This is mission critical for us OMAPI	This is mission critical for us Failover
We do not use this feature and have no plans to	We do not use this feature and have no plans to Basic Client functions	We do not use this feature and have no plans to Basic Server functions	We do not use this feature and have no plans to Basic Relay functions	We do not use this feature and have no plans to DDNS	We do not use this feature and have no plans to DHCP v6	We do not use this feature and have no plans to Dual Stack	We do not use this feature and have no plans to OMAPI	We do not use this feature and have no plans to Failover
We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below)	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) Basic Client functions	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) Basic Server functions	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) Basic Relay functions	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) DDNS	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) DHCP v6	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) Dual Stack	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) OMAPI	We have needs/wishes/concerns regarding this feature (please complete additional section below) Failover
We use this extensively	We use this extensively Basic Client functions	We use this extensively Basic Server functions	We use this extensively Basic Relay functions	We use this extensively DDNS	We use this extensively DHCP v6	We use this extensively Dual Stack	We use this extensively OMAPI	We use this extensively Failover
We use this occasionally	We use this occasionally Basic Client functions	We use this occasionally Basic Server functions	We use this occasionally Basic Relay functions	We use this occasionally DDNS	We use this occasionally DHCP v6	We use this occasionally Dual Stack	We use this occasionally OMAPI	We use this occasionally Failover

additional comments

Question Title

* 7. Short Term Future of DHCP 4.x. Please rate the relative importance of new or further development/improvements in each of the following areas:

	Most Important	Somewhat Important	Useful but not Important	Not Useful
Client functions	Client functions Most Important	Client functions Somewhat Important	Client functions Useful but not Important	Client functions Not Useful
DDNS	DDNS Most Important	DDNS Somewhat Important	DDNS Useful but not Important	DDNS Not Useful
DHCP v6	DHCP v6 Most Important	DHCP v6 Somewhat Important	DHCP v6 Useful but not Important	DHCP v6 Not Useful
Failover	Failover Most Important	Failover Somewhat Important	Failover Useful but not Important	Failover Not Useful
High Availability	High Availability Most Important	High Availability Somewhat Important	High Availability Useful but not Important	High Availability Not Useful
Relay functions	Relay functions Most Important	Relay functions Somewhat Important	Relay functions Useful but not Important	Relay functions Not Useful
Server functions	Server functions Most Important	Server functions Somewhat Important	Server functions Useful but not Important	Server functions Not Useful

further comments

Question Title

* 8. ISC DHCP is over 12 years old. The internet has changed a great deal during that time, computing platforms have evolved enormously, and software engineering technigues have improved. The existing ISC DHCP is no longer ideal and a new implementation, BIND 10 DHCP, is needed to meet the requirements of the next 10 years. ISC's new DHCP implementation will be created in cooperation with the BIND 10 DNS project, sharing infrastructure and design elements, so that operators can use them together easily and with optimized performance.

BIND 10 DHCP will progress with a set of high-level milestones, arranged similarly to BIND 10 DNS. Whereas BIND 10 DNS was laid out with the expectation of heavy levels of staffing and funding, BIND 10 DHCP does not have this expectation.

DHCP is often run in a environments with high memory constraints. We call these "embedded", even though some non-embedded environments also have memory constraints and some embedded devices have lots of memory. Since the design trade-offs are different for embedded and non-embedded environments, we plan on creating separate versions of BIND 10 DHCP for those respective class of platforms. The embedded server is less important than the "normal" server. The embedded client is more important, so the plan is to work on both versions of the client at the same time.

Please rate proposed features of DHCP in BIND 10 for your organization, and then let us know what else would be a priority for your operational requirements for the future of ISC DHCP.

	Need This	Would like This	This is not a priority	Do not want this to be in the product	Do not understand feature
Basic Server (Skeleton Server	Basic Server (Skeleton Server Need This	Basic Server (Skeleton Server Would like This	Basic Server (Skeleton Server This is not a priority	Basic Server (Skeleton Server Do not want this to be in the product	Basic Server (Skeleton Server Do not understand feature
DHCP Packet Library	DHCP Packet Library Need This	DHCP Packet Library Would like This	DHCP Packet Library This is not a priority	DHCP Packet Library Do not want this to be in the product	DHCP Packet Library Do not understand feature
DHCP Benchmark Tools	DHCP Benchmark Tools Need This	DHCP Benchmark Tools Would like This	DHCP Benchmark Tools This is not a priority	DHCP Benchmark Tools Do not want this to be in the product	DHCP Benchmark Tools Do not understand feature
SQL based pool and lease storage	SQL based pool and lease storage Need This	SQL based pool and lease storage Would like This	SQL based pool and lease storage This is not a priority	SQL based pool and lease storage Do not want this to be in the product	SQL based pool and lease storage Do not understand feature
Embedded "light" version of the server	Embedded "light" version of the server Need This	Embedded "light" version of the server Would like This	Embedded "light" version of the server This is not a priority	Embedded "light" version of the server Do not want this to be in the product	Embedded "light" version of the server Do not understand feature
Embedded "light" version of the client	Embedded "light" version of the client Need This	Embedded "light" version of the client Would like This	Embedded "light" version of the client This is not a priority	Embedded "light" version of the client Do not want this to be in the product	Embedded "light" version of the client Do not understand feature
High Availability	High Availability Need This	High Availability Would like This	High Availability This is not a priority	High Availability Do not want this to be in the product	High Availability Do not understand feature
Failover	Failover Need This	Failover Would like This	Failover This is not a priority	Failover Do not want this to be in the product	Failover Do not understand feature
DHCP v4 Relay	DHCP v4 Relay Need This	DHCP v4 Relay Would like This	DHCP v4 Relay This is not a priority	DHCP v4 Relay Do not want this to be in the product	DHCP v4 Relay Do not understand feature
DHCP v6 Relay	DHCP v6 Relay Need This	DHCP v6 Relay Would like This	DHCP v6 Relay This is not a priority	DHCP v6 Relay Do not want this to be in the product	DHCP v6 Relay Do not understand feature
OMAPI translation component (translator for those who need the old style of DHCP API)	OMAPI translation component (translator for those who need the old style of DHCP API) Need This	OMAPI translation component (translator for those who need the old style of DHCP API) Would like This	OMAPI translation component (translator for those who need the old style of DHCP API) This is not a priority	OMAPI translation component (translator for those who need the old style of DHCP API) Do not want this to be in the product	OMAPI translation component (translator for those who need the old style of DHCP API) Do not understand feature

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 9. What would you like to see further development in a high availability solution? Would this be a priority (over other development) for DHCP 4.x for you, or could your organization wait to get High Availability in DHCP in BIND 10?

Question Title

* 10. If you use current configuration scripting language, and/or OMAPI in your current implementation, please describe how you would like to see these functional requirements implemented in DHCP for BIND 10.

Question Title

* 11. What has been the biggest challenge for you in successfully using ISC DHCP?

Question Title

* 12. What would be the thing that you would most like to see fixed in or added to ISC DHCP?

Question Title

* 13. Would you like more information on how to support DHCP in BIND 10? Please check all that apply.

Follow development

Participate in development

Test early releases

Sponsor the project financially

Sponsor the project with dedicated development staff

Other

Other (please specify)