Hi Simon, Optional is fine. Removal gives us a hole in the solution.
Currently, we¹ve got lw4o6 deployed as a PoC using a fixed binding between v6 addr, v4 + ports. As a solution for this particular problem, it works and provisioning this over DHCPv6 would be much simpler than needing DHCPv4 over X (which we currently have to use as it¹s the only defined and implemented lw4o6 provisioning DHCPv4 based mechanism). Removing OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS effectively means that there needs to be mandatory support for something else. Adding in DHCPv4overDHCPv6 or PCP (if you don¹t need it) increases the cruft. Cheers, Ian On 14/11/2013 21:26, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: >WG, > >Currently draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-05 says that >OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS is mandatory. It has to be made at least optional >so that DHCPv4oDHCPv6 or PCP can be used for IPv4 address provisioning. > >Can we go further? Can we just remove OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS? The result >would be that DHCPv4oDHCPv6 or PCP would become mandatory. > >Any opinion on this? > >Thanks, >Simon >-- >DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca >NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
