Dear wg: draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option<mailto:[email protected]> has been reviewed by the IESG with input from the dhc wg. Their conclusion was that having both an IP option and an FQDN option to describe the tunnel-end-point was redundant. After many discussion between the IESG and the authors, the authors decided to remove the FQDN option, leaving only the IP address option in place.
The rationale is that the B4 element should remain as simple as possible and presenting multiple tunnel-end point alternative would seriously complicate the implementation on the client side. For example, the client would have to keep track which end-point is currently the best alternative and we would have to develop a complex mechanism to do that. Load balancing is better achieve by the DHCP server sending the proper tunnel end-point to the B4 element. There are cases where more complex B4 elements could benefits from having multiple tunnel endpoint to choose from, but those are not expected to be the common case and they should be dealt with differently. Our AD, Ralph Droms, asked us to verify there is consensus in the wg to do this. > David, Alain - The authors made a significant change to > draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option, deleting the FQDN option based on > IESG review and input from the dhc WG. The -05 rev is getting de facto > > review now, but you'll need to determine WG consensus for the changes in the > -05 rev. > > - Ralph If you have a strong opinion that the decision of the authors is the wrong one, please speak up now. This window for comments will end in 7 days, on 10/19. - Alain. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
