On 2012/06/27, at 19:01, Qi Sun wrote: > > 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. >
OK. But wait, if it's not about stateful or stateless, the DHCPv4 over IPv6 could also be a means to provision MAP CEs in a domain which is not only per-sub mapping rule case, but also in the case of all MAP CEs covered by single mapping rule. Great. How we are in well collaboration! Thanks a lot. cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
