Ole, On 2013-11-15, at 22:01, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon, > >>> if optional, we have to think through the corner cases: >>> - how does a CPE know when to initiate DHCPv4 (or PCP)? >> >> I would propose: when OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS is absent. >> >> DHCPv4 or PCP? Whichever one the CPE wants to try, or even both. We don't >> need to signal this. >> >>> - can a CPE end up with an IPv4 address provisioned both with >>> OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS >>> and DHCPv4 (and PCP)? >> >> Proposal: no. When OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS is present, you shall not do >> DHCPv4. PCP is still OK, since it doesn't technically assign an address to >> the interface, it merely informs the CPE of an existing stateless mapping >> (which may be the same as the one provisioned with OPTION_S46_IPV4ADDRESS). >> >>> - what does the CPE do with IPv4 addresses with longer lifetimes than the >>> softwire? >> >> Shouldn't happen with my proposal above. > > yes, I think this makes a lot of sense. > paraphrasing: > > - one of the containers are _always_ used to provision the softwire [Qi] When you say "provisioning the softwire", do you mean convey the v6 address of BR/lwAFTR to the clien? > - the absence of IPv4 address option in the LW46 container triggers DHCPv4 [Qi] There have been a Enable option for DHCPv4oDHCPv6, I think we can leverage it. Best Regards, Qi > - we can ignore PCP for now > > if the client requires other configuration information it can do DHCPv4 as it > wish. > > the only change required is to make the IPv4 address option in MAP-DHCP > optional. > (assuming there isn't consensus to drop it altogether.) > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
