Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option-01

Hi Ole,

Here are my opinions.

1) In IPv4-over-IPv6 scenarios, it is needed to allocate IPv4 address to
users in IPv6 access network. DHCPv4 is the right protocol to assign IPv4
address.

2) Using a Client Relay Agent is helpful to avoid modifications of DHCPv4
client, which will cause less change to current network and users.

3) draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option describes a DHCPv6 option
that is used to tell the CRA the unicast IPv6 address of TSV/TRA. IMO this
option can make the CRA work better.

Best Regards!
Qi Sun

2012/10/10 Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>

> > The authors have requested that the working group adopt
> draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option as a working group work
> item.   The document is within the scope of the current charter.   It
> describes a DHCPv6 option that is used to configure client relay agents
> (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6).
> >
> > If you think the working group should be working on such an option,
> please respond to this message by saying so.   If you think we should not,
> please say that.
>
> I think we should not. including draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6.
>
> a) DHC should wait until it is clear what the outcome of softwire is.
> there are multiple solutions to the same problem proposed.
>     hopefully one will not end up with standardizing all of them. DHCPv4
> over IPv6 is only needed in one of the solution sets.
> b) is this the right solution? if the working group doesn't think solving
> the problem of running DHCPv6 over IPv4 should use a CRA.
>     why is that the correct solution for DHCPv4 over IPv6?
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>  _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>