Hi Simon, Thinking further on this topic, I’ve changed my mind…
If you are implementing OPTION_S46_CONT_LW46, I say you have to implement all of the sub-options necessary to provision it, including OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS. If you want to use DHCPV4oDHCPv6 or PCP, then you don’t have to implement OPTION_S46_XX at all. Reasoning: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg05728.html Cheers, Ian On 15/11/2013 08:37, "Farrer, Ian" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
