Hi Simon, (cced softwire ML as this topic is of the interest of the wg too. This draft cannot be discussed without having the problem space to solve in mind)
With all due respect, complexifying the design because of a speculated need of IPv4-centric options in the future is not a valid argument IMHO. RFC6333 is a typical example of a solution which shows we don't need at all DHCPv4 to offer IPv4 service continuity. As discussed in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe/, very few parameters in addition to DS-Lite ones are needed to be configured to support MAP and LW4over6. Those few parameters can be packaged in one single DHCPv6 option and we are done. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de >Simon Perreault >Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 14:19 >À : [email protected] >Objet : Re: [dhcwg] [Softwires] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4- >over-dhcpv6 > >Le 2013-04-15 12:02, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit : >> I agree with Med. In reality, it is highly unlikely that each and every >> Dhcpv4 option would be needed for an ipv6 only host. > >Sure we can expect that today with the information we have at our >disposal. But what will we do if in the future the situation changes, >for whatever unanticipated reason, and we need more IPv4 options? >Assuming we won't need more makes it very easy to paint ourselves into a >corner. > >Simon >_______________________________________________ >dhcwg mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
