IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 10 October 2012 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 30CCC21F8755 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 WW7hTckP8cCF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A0421F874F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAJsrdVCQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABEvyuBCIIgAQEBAwESAQodPwULC0ZXBi4Hh10Glw+gIJEGYAOkMIFrgm8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,564,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="8673110"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2012 08:06:22 +0000
Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-112-212.cisco.com (dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-112-212.cisco.com [10.147.112.212]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9A86KPd019049 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:06:21 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\))
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <EDE04BE3-EF07-4CD2-B8D9-D82A570E8C19@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:06:18 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C2153F1-1FF3-4D30-8C7A-52B7AB7F21F0@employees.org>
References: <EDE04BE3-EF07-4CD2-B8D9-D82A570E8C19@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1498)
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 08:06:24 -0000

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email