Med, I agree we can talk more motivations in the draft. However, draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 discusses a generic specification of DHCPv4 over DHCPv6. I am not sure what we want to mention specific to MAP or lw4over6 in this draft.
Thanks, Yiu On 4/15/13 11:52 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >Re-, > >Thanks for the explanations. > >I suggest the document to be updated to reflect the clarifications you >provided and also the ones provided by Ian and Ted for MAP and Lw4over6 >cases. These are important inputs. > >I withdraw my objection to his document. > >Thank you all for your patient explanations. > >Cheers, >Med > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Qi Sun [mailto:[email protected]] >>Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 17:47 >>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >>Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>[email protected] >>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] [Softwires] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4- >>over-dhcpv6 >> >> >>Dear Med, >> >>In MAP-E pure stateless mode, IPv4 address (prefix) and port set are >>provisioned in MAP Rules as designed. But in MAP-E 1:1 mode and lw4over6 >>which are (kind of) stateful, it has to take into considerations about >>the >>lease time etc. issues. In this case, IMHO, DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 is more >>suitable for IPv4 related configurations. >> >>What's more, DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 is not only designed to deal with the >>option issues, but also to handle other architectural problems in >>transition (as Bernie mentioned in previous mail). So I think >>DHCPv4-over- >>DHCPv6 is helpful for the evolvement in DHCP architecture. >> >> >>Best Regards, >>Qi Sun >> >> >>On 2013-4-15, at 下午11:13, <[email protected]> >><[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification. >>> I understood from your answer: dhcpv6 will be used for both MAP and >>lw4over6 and both don't require draft-scskf-* for IP address + port >>provisioning. >>> >>> Given currently no additional dhcpv4 only options is required for any >>>of >>the solutions we are discussing in softwire, I do still think it is not >>justified to take on a solution for a problem which may not exist. >>> >>> draft-scskf-* proposal can be revived when there is a real need to >>support dhcpv4-only options. No? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Med >>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>> De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 16:56 >>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; [email protected] >>>> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> Objet : Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] Adoption call on >>>>draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4- >>>> over-dhcpv6 >>>> >>>> Hi Med, >>>> >>>> It would still work for lw-4o6 and the unified CPE. All of the basic >>>> params for configuring lw4o6/MAP1:1 can be provisioned through the >>>> OPTION_MAP_BIND that is proposed in the unified CPE draft over DHCPv6. >>>> Additional DHCPv4 only options would be done via the DHCPv4oDHCPv6 >>method >>>> for both lw4o6 and MAP-E. >>>> >>>> We still need to agree on which option will be used for provisioning >>>>the >>>> address of the lwAFTR/MAP BR, however. There was some discussion on >>>>this >>>> on the SW ML last week, but no conclusion reached. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> On 15/04/2013 16:47, "[email protected]" >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Re-, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for clarifying Ted. I must admit this is not what I understood >>>>> when I read draft-scskf-*. >>>>> >>>>> Does the same conclusion applies also for lw-4over6? (I'm naively >>>>> assuming, given the approach defined in draft-ietf-softwire-unified- >>cpe, >>>>> the same dhcpv6 to configure MAP will also be used lw-4over6) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Med >>>>> >>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>>> De : Ted Lemon [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 16:39 >>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >>>>>> Cc : Qi Sun; [email protected]; Softwires ([email protected]) >>>>>> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over- >>dhcpv6 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Are you saying MAP is not a concerned with this draft and dhcpv6 >>>>>>>can >>be >>>>>> used for MAP? >>>>>> >>>>>> For configuring the MAP-E prefix and port set, yes. That was the >>>>>> discussion we had in Softwires in Orlando: cover the easy stuff with >>>>>> DHCPv6 >>>>>> (this is the existing DHCPv6 MAP option), and then if someone needs >>>>>> legacy >>>>>> IPv4 services or stateful address allocation, do it with >>>>>>DHCPv4-over- >>>>>> DHCPv6. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Softwires mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dhcwg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
