This behavior should most likely be specified in the cpe-router-bis draft. It may interact with other Initialization behaviors, as well.
- Ralph On Mar 1, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Daniel Roesen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:08:51PM +0000, Lee, Yiu wrote: >> [YL] I agree with you this have to be specified. I can think of either the >> cpe-router-bis draft or the draft-dslite-deployment should specify the >> exact behavior. Do you agree that the draft-dslite-deployment is a good >> place to define this behavior? > > Not really. Operators need a normative specification to point CPE router > vendors at. draft-dslite-deployment aims to be "Informational" and > "discusses" things. It doesn't mandate specific behaviour. The strongest > guidance I read in the document is that B4 SHOULD implement the DHCP > option. > > It's already hard to push vendors to implement things in moving drafts, > but it will be even harder to ask them to implement what they read into > informational documents. :-) > > On a side note, it would be reallyreally good if we would get the DHCP > option draft to RFC as quick as possible in order to have vendors > actually implement the proper final IANA assigned DHCP option - > currently it's all custom handwaving, making interop testing hard at > best. > >> With the open-source code I use for test, I have to manually configure the >> CPE to the dslite mode, but this is less than ideal. > > Indeed. Current implementation we test with has a GUI switch: > > (*) native IPv4 (DHCPv4) > ( ) DS-Lite > > No "auto" heuristics, and DHCPv4 being default with no automatic DS-Lite > "fallback". In fact, any customer with a DS-Lite-only provisioned > connection would have to change that option in order to come online > proper if it would remain like that. > > Next week we'll get the next DS-Lite pre-production test implementation > of another major CPE router vendor on the test bench - I'm eager to see > how DS-Lite "optionality" is done there. They are expecting us to tell > them how it's done "right" from an operational point of view - but > that shouldn't be ISP-specific, but well reviewed guidance from > some normative spec (sorry, I'm repeating myself I guess). > >> I remember I previously discussed this with the cpe-router-bis's >> authors. I will have to dig up the old mails to find out what >> conclusion we reached. > > Thanks! > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- > CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
