Dear Tom and all, I think this discussion is significant.
2013/10/18 Tom Taylor <[email protected]> > (1) DHCP Provisioning of IPv4 Options > ==============================**====== > > The conclusion out of Berlin is that the best general solution to > provisioning of IPv4 and transition-specific options is to use DHCPv4 over > DHCPv6 as documented in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-**dhcpv6-01.txt. The > authors of draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-**05.txt argue that that document > is sufficient to meet the needs of MAP, but it is not a general solution > and leaves the other techniques uncovered. > [Cong] I agree with this conclusion that DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 shoud be used as the IPv4 provisioning protocol in IPv6 network. I think it's clear that DHCPv4 is designed for IPv4 address provisioning, and DHCPv6 is designed for IPv6 address provisioning. I don't understand what the benefit is to use DHCPv6 for IPv4 address provisioning. > (4) Summary of Provisioned Information > ==============================**======= > > Common to multiple methods > -------------------------- > > Every method requires signalling of the IPv6 tunnel endpoint addresses at > the CPE and the BR. It is assumed that this is done as a preliminary step, > as illustrated in draft-ietf-softwire-public-**4over6-10.txt Figure 2. > That document assumes the provisioning of both addresses is done by DHCPv6, > if it is done by DHCP at all. > > Note that RFC 6334 provides the AFTR-Name option, which is an FQDN. > [Cong] map-dhcp-05 defines a new DHCPv6 option OPTION_S46_BR to provide BR/lwAFTR address. The draft requires both MAP-E and lw4o6 to use this option. If a unified tunnel-end option is needed, OPTION_AFTR_NAME in RFC6334 should be used. If this option is not good enough, we should update it. If OPTION_S46_BR is not going to cover DS-Lite, it should not include lw4o6 either. Then we should define seperate options for each mechanism. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-softwire-lw4over6-dhcpv6-00 describes such scenario. > Light-Weight 4over6 > ------------------- > > An object to specify the assigned port set is required. This would be > carried via DHCPv4overDHCPv6. > [Cong] I agree and think it's a consensus that the recommended provisioning mechanism for lw4o6 is DHCPv4 over DHCPv6, not DHCPv6. Best Regards, Cong
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
