IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 10 October 2012 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C51621F86BE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wjCuh4yzzpQB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB69B21F8658 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHVrRGeVMpSaYFBf6N4fEMLvwl5VzORv@postini.com; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:13 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FFD1B83A0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7677619005C; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:34:11 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option-01
Thread-Index: AQHNnAwoksIIq5rbSkG4M+kw2Zj+pZeyuYEAgABK2IA=
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:10 +0000
Message-ID: <EC4D0202-6D6E-4C76-99BE-36375C59B134@nominum.com>
References: <EDE04BE3-EF07-4CD2-B8D9-D82A570E8C19@nominum.com> <2C2153F1-1FF3-4D30-8C7A-52B7AB7F21F0@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <2C2153F1-1FF3-4D30-8C7A-52B7AB7F21F0@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <DB4CC4547DC22443A66D715A0CB9D469@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhcwg WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:14 -0000

On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 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?

The working group has already adopted dhcpv4-over-ipv6.   This is an option to carry the IPv6 address of the DHCPv4-over-IPv6 server to the CRA so that it can relay correctly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email