On 2012/06/27, at 18:20, Qi Sun wrote: > Hi Satoru, > > Please see inline. > > BTW, my name is Qi :) >
Agh! I'm so sorry! > > [Qi] What we are discussing is on the essence of MAP where 1:1 mode is > intended to import binding table on BR , and on whether the ietf-map-00 is > qualified as a WG draft without consensus of the softwire WG. Rather than the > provisioning methods, saying DHCPv4 over IPv6 or DHCPv6 options. > Ah, ok. > > All those mechanisms like DHCPv4 over IPv6 or PCP are not the essence of > > the protocol but provisioning method for LW4over6. > > Actually, based on what you have said, I can get that the "new" MAP can > > achieve its NEW added 1:1 mode with the help of DHCPv4 over IPv6 for IPv4 > > address allocation. Why don't you use it, which has been a DHC WG draft? > > > > These are not possible because they require state in BR so that it's LW46 use > case, right? MAP define mapping rule in stateless manner. > > [Qi] As a provisioning method, DHCPv4 over IPv6 DOES NOT require any state in > TC/BR. Please check the draft. As a result, this is not about stateful or > stateless. There is no conflict between the binding table on BR and the > DHCPv4 over IPv6 process. If it is true, LW46 should be a stateless solution. cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
