Ian, > How about: > > -- > The solution described in this document is suitable for provisioning IPv4 > addressing and other configuration necessary for establishing softwire > connectivity using DHCPv6. This means that the lifetime of the IPv4 > configuration is bound to the lifetime of the DHCPv6 lease. For MAP-E and > MAP-T, this is necessary due to the mapping between the IPv4 and the IPv6 > address. Lightweight 4over6 allows for the de-coupling of the IPv4 and > IPv6 lease times. If this is required, then DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 > [ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6] should be used for IPv4 address leasing. > > Additional DHCPv4 options are not transported natively in DHCPv6. If these > are required for client provisioning, then DHCPINFORM transported in > DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 should be used. > ‹ > > Does that cover it?
yes, that appears good. I'll add that to the next revision if I don't hear loud objections. cheers, Ole > >> Ian, >> >>> From a discussion with Bernie and Tomeck earlier: To give some clarity >>> about what the different 4o6 provisioning mechanisms are suitable for, >>> can we add in some text to bound the scope of map-dhcp to provisioning >>> static v4 configuration parameters (i.e. precluding dynamic v4 leasing) >>> with no additional DHCPv4 options and add in an informative pointer to >>> using DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 for dynamic/additional options? >>> >>> Likewise, I¹m putting a similar back pointer to MAP-DHCP in the >>> dhc-v4-configuration draft: >>> >>> For the most simple IPv4 provisioning case, where the client only needs >>> to receive a static IPv4 address range assignment (with no dynamic >>> address leasing or additional IPv4 configuration), DHCPv6 based >>> approaches [ietf-softwire-map-dhcp] may provide a suitable solution. >>> >>> The DHCPv4oDHCPv6 doc should have a similar pointer to map-dhcp for >>> static as well. >> >> could you propose some text? >> I'm not quite sure what bounding of scope you'd like to see. >> all the lifetimes of configuration information defined in MAP DHCP are >> bounded by the lifetimes of the tunnel, >> i.e. the lifetime of the End-user IPv6 prefix. >> >> the IPv4 address assignment will be as dynamic as the underlaying IPv6 >> assignment is. >> >> what using DHCPv4 address leases gets you, is separate lease times. given >> that, this mode is incompatible with MAP-T and -E, >> I'm not quite sure what this document can say about it? >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
