Here are my comments from a quick glance. Apologies for being late. Thanks for simplifying this document. A much easier and less contentious read now.
I think it needs a little bit more detail and explanation before advancing though. The document is lacking some detail. It mentions "DHCPv6 Offer", which in 3315 terminology I'm not sure what is. In a 4-way DHCPv6 exchange, would the expectation be something like: -> SOLICIT: ORO includes MAP-E, LW46, and DS-lite and Priority option request. <- ADVERTISE : includes priority option, with MAP-E, DS-lite and LW46 data objects (server might have reserved address at this point) -> REQUEST: client only request the mechanism at the top of the list <- REPLY: server assigns the addresses to client, and can free up resources reserved for the other mechanisms. If I was an operator that had a fixed allocation of address 1.1.1.1:1000-2000 to a given customer. Would I then put the same IPv4 address for each of the mechanisms in the ADVERTISE? Do you need to say anything about how to deal with clients that do not support the priority option? Cheers, Ole > On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:55, Yong Cui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > The authors of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-03 believe this document is > ready for advancement. > We would like to issue a working group last call starting from today to April > 5th. > > Please send your substantial comments to the list during the last call. You > are also welcome to send your editorial comments directly to the authors. > > Thanks for reviewing the draft. > > > Yong Cui, Suresh Krishnan and Ian Farrer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
