Hi Ted, Thanks for your comments.
2013/10/30 Ted Lemon <[email protected]> > On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Cong Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > 0) MAP & lw4o6 are parallel solutions, rather than lw4o6 is a subset of > MAP. Softwire-dhcp should claim this, and remove "Lightweight 4over6 is a > strict subset of MAP-E". > > I think the correct thing to say here is that lw4over6 is much simpler > than MAP-E—the client doesn't need to do any math, and just takes the > configuration from the server. > [Cong] I agree. > > 1) MAP uses DHCPv6 as the provisioning mechanism. DHCPv6 is optional for > lw4over6, used for stateless provisioning (static mode) > > How does the lw4over6 client know it's stateless without a DHCPv6 option > that tells it? If you mean that the absence of a DHCPv6 option > configuring a static IP address/port set is what does it, then that > solution still requires DHCPv6—it just doesn't require that specific option > to be sent. > > The difference here is not that lw4over6 doesn't require DHCPv6, but that > it additionally requires DHCPv4 for dynamic allocation, if dynamic > allocation is used. > [Cong] Yes, that's what I mean. DHCPv6 is required in both cases, and DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 is also in DHCPv6, so this document should make a discussion on it. > > I am sure that I am just restating what you already know, but I want to be > sure that we don't start arguing about a point on which we don't actually > disagree. > [Cong] It seems not have been fully discussed in the mail list, so I just want to make sure whether there's consensus on these points. Thanks! Best Regards, Cong
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
