Hi Yiu,
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:07:48PM +0000, Lee, Yiu wrote:
> draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option defines the behavior how the B4
> obtains the AFTR information. It is not to define to use dhcp to signal
> the B4 to use dual-stack mode or ds-lite mode.
What would be the more appropriate place if not there?
Even if deemed out of scope, wouldn't a correction to the RFC3315 reference
("will not reply") be imperative? Or do I misread something?
> For your question, if the ISP provisions the dhcp server not to respond
> dhcpv4 request from the B4, the B4 would use dhcpv6 to obtain the AFTR
> information. This should be sufficient.
So your suggestion would be to have the CPE implementing DS-Lite to
always ask for the AFTR address, but enable DS-Lite mode automatically
only and exactly if the DHCPv4 request fails?
I think there should be some guidance on recommended CPE router
behaviour in either the ds-lite spec or the ds-lite DHCP option spec.
Otherwise, I see DS-Lite coming in CPE routers as just an option which
needs to be manually turned on by the customer - or every CPE router
vendor developing their own heuristics. We'd like to avoid that.
How to enforce DS-Lite operations is something that should be
standardised so we can point vendors on the specification how to behave.
We could probably stick it into the v6ops cpe-router-bis draft, but that
would mean that this document needs guidance for every transition
mechanism with similar scenarios - wouldn't it be better to describe
desired CPE behaviour for a specific transition technologie in the spec
of that?
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
