Dear Ole, Please see inline.
>> MAP is incompatible with dynamic IPv4 address assignment using DHCPv4. >> >> Yes, dynamic IPv4 address assignment is only used by lw4o6. But >> OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS in map-dhcp-05 is also proposed for only lw4o6, >> so I think it's not a problem to have a discussion of dynamic IPv4 >> provisioning. >> >> either you can consider MAP DHCP as the building block used by a separate >> document describing the >> DHCPv4 address assignment case. or we can split out LW46 provisioning from >> MAP DHCP altogether. >> >> I think the key problem here is the scope of the document: whether >> "softwire-dhcp" discussing both static and dynamic IPv4 provisioning, > > to nitpick, MAP DHCP is also dynamic by the way, just that the IPv4 address > lifetime is equal to the IPv6 prefix lifetime. [Qi] IMO, map-dhcp has an assumption that the mapping between IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix is pre-determined, which is a static mapping. But that assumption is not always true. We should allow flexibility for the users to use a dynamic mapping. > >> or "stateless-softwire-dhcp" discussing only static provisioning. I'm just >> suggesting "softwire-dhcp" solution. > > I would be in favour of having separate drafts, that can be combined to > create more complex solutions. [Qi] If one draft can make it clear, I don't think we need a combination. > > (and please don't read from this that I support doing DHCPv4 address > assignment for these mechanisms, I am far from convinced that it is needed). [Qi] There are requirements for it. And it follows DHC's consensus. Thanks, Qi > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
