Dear Ted, Please see inline. Cheers, Med
>-----Message d'origine----- >De : Ted Lemon [mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com] >Envoyé : jeudi 18 octobre 2012 14:51 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >Cc : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: >draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt > >In review in the DHC working group (which just started!), Med: As a reminder, I have sent a notification to DHC to review this draft (April 2012). Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12575.html. >Bernie Volz pointed out that you've defined yet another format >for IPv6 prefixes in DHCPv6 options, and requests that you use >one of the two existing formats. > >I also notice that it appears that you have a fixed-format >option, but some parts of the option may or may not appear >depending on server configuration, and that if they do not >appear, the option merely has a shorter length. This is >contrary to the way things are normally done in DHCP servers, >and will require special UI or configuration file tweaks to get right. Med: I can change this easily if you think we need to do so. We use a fixed length because: * SSM_PREFIX64 and ASM_PREFIX64 are /96 * U_PREFIX64 follows RFC6052; it may have variable length with a maximum being /96. > >It would be better if each of the three optional fields in the >option were simply its own option. Is there some strong >reason why all three of these fields need to be in the same >DHCP option? Med: I have provided an answer to this question here (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12577.html; and given I didn't received an answer from your side I thought you were fine with my explanation. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
