Le 2013-11-15 13:55, Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Simon Perreault <[email protected]>
wrote:
Right. I think that the utility of enable options still needs to be
demonstrated.
Bear in mind that DHCPv4overDHCPv6 is intended to be a broad solution, not a
softwires-only solution. So it makes some sense to have an enable option for
it, which should be independent of the softwires DHCP options.
Right, I had forgotten about that. You're right.
As for PCP, how do you feel about DHCPv4 clients blabbing forever on IPv6-only
links? Now, how about PCP clients on non-PCP links? No problem? Why is
PCP different?
Good question, but it needs to be scoped to "PCP requests for IPv4
external ports". PCP requests for IPv6 external ports still make sense
in an IPv6-only world.
You're right, it seems to me that we have the same problem with PCP
requests for IPv4 external ports as we have with DHCPv4. *gasp* I will
for sure be thinking about this, and how it impacts sunset4.
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
