Qi, >>> 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.
yes, MAP has that assumption. >>> 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. I think the difference is that MAP-DHCP is really there to provision the link-layer (tunnel). if we follow the principle (that I also stated to Ted), that DHCPv6 is used to provision the link-layer, and DHCPv4 is used to provision the IPv4 layer. then I think the "fallout" of that should be that we'd remove the OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS from the MAP DHCP draft. are you fine with that approach? >> (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. I don't think it is appropriate for you to declare DHC WG consensus. in any case this would have to be consensus in softwires, wouldn't it? cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
