Hi Ole, 2013/11/1 Ole Troan <[email protected]>
> > On 01 Nov 2013, at 14:50 , Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> if we follow the principle of DHCPv6 is used to provision the > link-layer (aka tunnel), > >> DHCPv4 is used to configure the IPv4 protocol. then I wonder if we > shouldn't really > >> _only_ use DHCPv4 for LW46 IPv4 configuration. does that make sense? > > > > DHCPv6 would still deliver the AFTR address, right? I don't personally > see a lot of value in having two ways of delivering the IPv4 address for > lw4over6, but maybe the authors can explain? > > absolutely, the AFTR address is part of link-layer provisioning, so that > would be done with DHCPv6. but 'nothing' else. > Besides DHCPv4-based method, PCP is also proposed for lw4o6 IPv4 configuration. According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perreault-softwire-lw4over6-pcp-00, the provisioning process is the same: (1) Provision AFTR address by DHCPv6 option; (2) Provision (IPv4 address + ports) by PCP Do you mean DHCPv6 in step(1) should be avoided ? Best Regards, Cong
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
