[Softwires] Tunnel discovery

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi,

Looking at the need for discovering a tunnel-endpoint for DSLINE, same as
for other softwires protocols, I wonder if we should revive the work
previously done at

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-03.txt

I see that a DHCP option is being proposed, however, our previous study was
showing that this is not the best alternative, and similar approaches where
rejected before for softwires hubsspoke TEP discovery by the DHCP WG.

Regards,
Jordi






**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.



___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Re: [Softwires] Comment about draft-dhankins-softwire-tunnel-option

[mohamed.boucadair]

Dear Dave, all,

I'm not talking about that, but when I don't want to add any entry to my DNS 
due to some reasons (avoid extra configuration task of DNS for instance.)

Cheers,
Med
 

-Message d'origine-
De : Dave Thaler [mailto:dtha...@microsoft.com] 
Envoyé : lundi 16 novembre 2009 23:54
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed NCPI/NAD/TIP; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : RE: Comment about draft-dhankins-softwire-tunnel-option

You can resolve an FQDN to a list of IPv6 addresses, so it seems to
already provide that ability just with an FQDN.

-Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
 Behalf Of mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
 Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:34 AM
 To: softwires@ietf.org
 Subject: [Softwires] Comment about draft-dhankins-softwire-tunnel-
 option
 
 
 Dear authors, all,
 
 The current version of the draft defines a single option which is used
 to convey one FQDN pointing to a DS-lite CGN. The use of FQDN may have
 several advantages compared to a plain IPv6 address such as enabling
 DNS-based load distribution among a set of CGN devices. Nevertheless,
 this should not preclude to define an option to convey a (list) of IPv6
 address instead of FQDN. It is up to the service providers to decide
 whether enclosing an IP address or a FQDN in the ds-lite DHCP option is
 more appropriate in their contexts.
 
 Is there any reason why the draft defines only the FQDN option?
 
 Cheers,
 Med
 *
 This message and any attachments (the message) are confidential and
 intended solely for the addressees.
 Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
 Messages are susceptible to alteration.
 France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered,
 changed or falsified.
 If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it
 immediately and inform the sender.
 


*
This message and any attachments (the message) are confidential and intended 
solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or 
falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it 
immediately and inform the sender.


___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires