Hi Satoru, Please see inline :)
Qi Sun On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Satoru Matsushima < [email protected]> wrote: > Qi, > > On 2012/06/27, at 19:01, Qi Sun wrote: > > > > > [Qi] DHCPv4 over IPv6 is a provisioning method. And it's about the > public IPv4 address allocation, NOT about IPv4 address and IPv6 address > mapping. So there is no state. Please read the draft of DHCPv4 over IPv6 > for clarification. > > LW4over6 needs to maintain the binding table on TC. That's stateful. > > That sense is 'stateless' in my mind if there's no DHCP state in the BR. > > [Qi] What discussed here is about states on data plane, aka the v4-v6 addressing binding(please refer to joel's email). The binding table could be dynamic(on-demand) or static. > > Actually in MAP 1:1 mode there will be a binding table right? Here comes > the question: what will you do if there are new comers or some users > leaving the network? > > it is just an operation in provision. Now I find that LW46 could be > possible to merged with MAP, or vice versa. thanks. > [Qi] LW4over6 is a solution targeting at the per-user stateful/binding scenario, pure and clear. MAP is originally targeting at pure stateless/alogrithmic address mapping scenario, and then comes to this 1:1 mode due to the theoretical corner case of EA-bits=0, according to you guys. While I believe the main targets are differnt and paralled (actually two out of three in 4-over-6 case, with the 3rd one per-session stateful), I don't think merging is the proper way to proceed. Thanks, Qi > > cheers, > --satoru
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
