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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 11 November 2013 12:05 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 1020A11E816F; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:05:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50GmnOltnypG; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E242411E8167; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051C85EFE; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:05:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=selector1; bh=wJHXwRWSXDO81it69X2f6 pu4z9M=; b=BX4pKUieb4XNYJIVkukH9yN9aHgsqXUDn4ZnkxHLcaOepKeTvP7Xb WxcXeaStu641+vgkDDge24HRj1uNjecj4FsU0YeVHzs6FGtdjG1FioOeaHpgQGFp U2ez7ARySn3do+d1gu7YdJ6cR/23Kp+1bWmEfwekJdU1khsfVzxDqQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=MzyfYzOewr4xz/w AXImGdv7Q3e83lZ6VADJrCAvwnsohlCo2ctTIBn/OounCxm/KSOPiDuEqh78SDIX U/HVw2KoviWMBQJakkiGliKogLTO3YzxvNFTVqgXrMxQWDkUghI4fcZuKMEGUwma wNMdebzkQ2H7ygJCKHozl7lXgQp8=
Received: from [10.16.0.73] (unknown [195.159.143.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54CC25FCA; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_832C59E7-453F-49D9-BA01-EC49CE3C0C20"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEA683DF.90032%ian.farrer@telekom.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:05:33 +0100
Message-Id: <7ABAEBDE-3D30-41FD-903B-75AE4DB6DC59@employees.org>
References: <CEA683DF.90032%ian.farrer@telekom.de>
To: "<ian.farrer@telekom.de> Farrer" <ian.farrer@telekom.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: Ian Farrer <ifarrer@me.com>, Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: Alignment between softwire-map-dhcp and dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 drafts
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:05:49 -0000

Ian,

> 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.
> 
> 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.
> ‹
> 
> Does that cover it?

yes, that appears good. I'll add that to the next revision if I don't hear loud objections.

cheers,
Ole

> 
>> 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
>> 
>