Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

[Marcin Siodelski <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 9.       A general issue … I wonder whether we have a kind of catch-22. As
> DHCP is interface specific, and the tunnel interface may not be able to
> ‘come up’ until after the address is assigned, what interface is this
> ‘DHCPv4’ (4o6) client associated with? Is it the v6 interface? Or a
> ‘provisional’ tunnel interface? Or, is this left up to the implementation to
> deal with (since in one sense it probably doesn’t matter much – except of
> course if one was trying to bring up multiple tunnel interfaces over the
> same v6 interface; but that requires other special logic so may not be a
> concern).
>
>

I wonder if we have to associate the 4o6 client with any interface
before the tunnel configuration arrives. The draft mandates that
conforming implementation uses RFC4361 so there should be no problem
of lacking chaddr on the client side. I think we should also mention
that RFC6842 should be implemented on the server side so as it
respects a client identifier, not chaddr.
Before the client gets the tunnel configuration the tunnel interface
doesn't exist. The 4o6 client just generates the client identifier
(unique by IAID) for the tunnel to be established. Once the v4
configuration is complete, the tunnel is created and the client
associates the client identifier with this tunnel/interface.

Marcin