Re: [dhcwg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: Alignment between softwire-map-dhcp and dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 drafts

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 11/11/2013 12:54, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Ole,
>
>How about:
>
>--
>The solution described in this document is suitable for provisioning IPv4
>addressing and other configuration necessary for establishing softwire
>connectivity using DHCPv6. This means that the lifetime of the IPv4
>configuration is bound to the lifetime of the DHCPv6 lease. For MAP-E and
>MAP-T, this is necessary due to the mapping between the IPv4 and the IPv6
>address. Lightweight 4over6 allows for the de-coupling of the IPv4 and
>IPv6 lease times. If this is required, then DHCPv4 over DHCPv6
>[ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6] should be used for IPv4 address leasing.

It's close, but not quite as MAP doesn't mandate stageful DHCP of any kind
(SLAAC can also be used).

>
>Additional DHCPv4 options are not transported natively in DHCPv6. If these
>are required for client provisioning, then DHCPINFORM transported in
>DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 should be used.

I would propose that only the above paragraph be added, restated as:

Additional DHCPv4 options are not transported natively in DHCPv6. If these
are required for client provisioning, then DHCPINFORM transported in
DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 [ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6] should be used.

Thanks,
Wocjeich.



>‹
>
>Does that cover it?
>
>Cheers,
>Ian
>
>
>
>
>On 08/11/2013 00:24, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Ian,
>>
>>> From a discussion with Bernie and Tomeck earlier: To give some clarity
>>>about what the different 4o6 provisioning mechanisms are suitable for,
>>>can we add in some text to bound the scope of map-dhcp to provisioning
>>>static v4 configuration parameters (i.e. precluding dynamic v4 leasing)
>>>with no additional DHCPv4 options and add in an informative pointer to
>>>using DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 for dynamic/additional options?
>>> 
>>> Likewise, I¹m putting a similar back pointer to MAP-DHCP in the
>>>dhc-v4-configuration draft:
>>> 
>>> For the most simple IPv4 provisioning case, where the client only needs
>>>to receive a static IPv4 address range assignment (with no dynamic
>>>address leasing or additional IPv4 configuration), DHCPv6 based
>>>approaches [ietf-softwire-map-dhcp] may provide a suitable solution.
>>> 
>>> The DHCPv4oDHCPv6 doc should have a similar pointer to map-dhcp for
>>>static as well.
>>
>>could you propose some text?
>>I'm not quite sure what bounding of scope you'd like to see.
>>all the lifetimes of configuration information defined in MAP DHCP are
>>bounded by the lifetimes of the tunnel,
>>i.e. the lifetime of the End-user IPv6 prefix.
>>
>>the IPv4 address assignment will be as dynamic as the underlaying IPv6
>>assignment is.
>>
>>what using DHCPv4 address leases gets you, is separate lease times. given
>>that, this mode is incompatible with MAP-T and -E,
>>I'm not quite sure what this document can say about it?
>>
>>cheers,
>>Ole
>>
>