Re: [dhcwg] applicability of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ctep-opt-01

Looks like I was missing something.  I confused
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ctep-opt-01 with draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-02.  I
think my confusion arose because of the context of the conversation.  I had
understood draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ctep-opt-01 to be intended to inform a host
of a tunnel endpoint (which I think would normally be accomplished through
routing protocols) and draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-02 to talk about
configuring isolated routers with the endpoint of a tunnel.

My apologies for thoroughly confusing the conversation...

So, let's leave draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-02 out of this discussion for
the moment.  Back to the scenario you asked about...I can imagine (if you'll
give me a moment of suspension-of-disbelief) that an ISP might want to
provide IPv6/linklocal service between the service provider's edge router
and the customer routers, without going to full IPv6 connectivity in its
core.  In that scenario, the customer router could use DHCPv6 to obtain a
prefix and a tunnel endpoint from a server in the service provider's edge
router, while needing the tunnel for full external IPv6 connectivity.

But that does seem like a far-fetched scenario...

- Ralph

At 04:53 PM 4/9/2004 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > An IPv6 "home gateway" with a single upstream interface (to
> > the service provider) and one or more downstream interfaces
> > will operate in a sufficiently constrained environment so
> > as to allow plug-and-play operation with only minimal
> > configuration (such as a prefix delegated from the service
> > provider).  In this case, if the service provider makes IPv6
> > service available through a configured tunnel, the only other
> > configuration required would be the address of the other
> > endpoint of the tunnel.  It would make sense to provide
> > that endpoint address through DHCP along with the delegated
> > prefix.
>
>To be able to run DHCP*v6* between the CPE and the ISP, there has to
>be IPv6 connectivity.  If there is no v6 connectivity, you cannot use
>DHCPv6.  If there _is_ v6 connectivity, you do not need a configured
>tunnel, because you already have v6 connectivity.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>(Or are you visualizing the scenario where there would be IPv6
>link-local connectivity, but for global connectivity, you would have
>to use a tunnel?  If so, could you describe a specific scenario as I
>fail to see where this would apply to?)
>
>--
>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg