A small complementary comment, inline [FP] please. Comment 2:
I think RFC7341 solves the problem of transporting DHCPv4 message in an IPv6 only network, but not disabling IPv4 address auto-configuration. I think we can add RFC7341 to the second paragraph of A.1.2 as a referential solution, and it should be used in combination with RFC2563. In this way, IPv4 addr autoconf can be disabled over pure IPv6 access network, but still running an IPv4 DHCP server is needed. [Linhui]: Agree, I think adding DHCP4o6 as an alternative solution in the appendix is the best way. Since I've ignored that DHCP4o6 will not implemented on every IPv4 or dual-stack host. Thus it would be clearer to treat it as an alternative. [FP] Giving it a second thought, since it requires the implementation of DHCP4o6 client on the hosts, application of DHCP4o6+RFC2563 to disable IPv4 auto-configuration may be rather restricted. DHCP4o6 is not designed to be used universally, as shown in the text of RFC7341: This is intended as a special-purpose mechanism that will be implemented on nodes that must obtain IPv4 configuration information using DHCPv4 in specific environments where native DHCPv4 is not available. Such nodes are expected to follow the advice in Section 9; nodes that do not require this functionality are expected not to implement it, or not to enable it by default. Best regards, Peng Comment 3: Problem 13 states that other provisioning protocols such as DHCP may also develop similar on-demand IPv4 address provisioning mechanism as proposed for PPP, thus we may encounter the same problem when using those protocols. [Linhui]: Well, I could get your idea now : ) Best regards, Peng From: sunset4 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linhui Sun Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 2:06 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [sunset4] Review of draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-07 Dear authors, I read this document and think it is really a good and useful work. The draft describes various problems that we may encounter when we desire to sunset the IPv4, also some corresponding solutions is available in the appendix. Meanwhile, I've got some minor questions and comments about this document. Since I'm not pretty much familiar with the sunset4 area, please correct me if I got something wrong. Some detailed comments: 1. In section 3.1, PROBLEM 2. Are the "default routers" just the "relay agents" in DHCP? If so, it would be better to use "relay agents" instead of the "default routers". 2. In section 3.2, the last paragraph. The text says "using this option requires running an IPv4 DHCP server". However, I think we could run a DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 server (RFC7341) here to solve the problem. DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 aims to solve the problem that DHCPv4 messages cannot be transported in pure IPv6 networks. Thus there is no need to design another equivalent protocol of RFC2563 using DHCPv6 as described in the section A.1.2. 3. In section 6, PROBLEM 13. You mentioned DHCP here, do you mean DHCP should also have a similar mechanism? Best Regards Linhui _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 Best Regards, Linhui
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
