IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Qi Sun" <sunqi.thu@gmail.com> Thu, 11 October 2012 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.thu@gmail.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 EE02A21F8710 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 q81FigjV7VlH for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D1221F86F0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ro8so1581253pbb.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:reply-to:subject:references:x-priority:x-guid :x-mailer:mime-version:message-id:content-type; bh=SBytza7S2d798318D04MWV4JTbz8ZDhRp9m2j3LF5O0=; b=YK2kEW51NTeXn6ffBTJYuaOnqOyv9GwrgV7e8ufU27DeHtGvGwVR/RFN886Kzwm6np quNFqG9YogVbbOZgP1l/XwQiVbe3j1AmayjMIzaEM6iAvnBm8Z3Xb+IOwGbnrz793GXu 32oAPUEbTGTsVMQQIoIPu9Fl+92UUqZdv1J5txjiR9JKQMYr9JqOT1Uf/CwPy84FdRJr BV0yMSdmyj9BVoI6vz+n5bAMA8AcLamjv6KDX8ioG/Qv3av7QVd10Rn62Hfmb+9+DetV T/CJ7UOO2H8G7U9whMXUyKCymE4+hRMM+1AR+WVr0udg6gkgC6j103Pxb1hJW3lldpL6 4cxA==
Received: by 10.68.221.168 with SMTP id qf8mr1248440pbc.37.1349940888081; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunqi ([114.255.41.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id no1sm708560pbc.21.2012.10.11.00.34.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:34:40 +0800
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.thu@gmail.com>
To: Ole Tr�an <otroan@employees.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <EDE04BE3-EF07-4CD2-B8D9-D82A570E8C19@nominum.com>, <2C2153F1-1FF3-4D30-8C7A-52B7AB7F21F0@employees.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 81E62F1C-6DDC-42AD-9A64-766C753F8C89
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.83[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012101111311241723818@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart882156110178_=----"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <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
Reply-To: "sunqi.thu" <sunqi.thu@gmail.com>
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: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:34:49 -0000

Hi Ole,

Please see my opinions inline.




Qi Sun

From: Ole Trøan
Date: 2012-10-10 16:06
To: Ted Lemon
CC: dhcwg WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option-01
> 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?

[Qi] 1) In IPv4-over-IPv6 scenarios, it is needed to allocate IPv4 address to users in IPv6 access network. DHCPv4 is the right protocol to assign IPv4 address. 
       2) Using a Client Relay Agent is helpful to avoid modifications of DHCPv4 client, which will cause less change to current network and users.
       3) draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option describes a DHCPv6 option that is used to tell the CRA the unicast IPv6 address of TSV/TRA. IMO this option can make the CRA work better.

Best Regards!
Qi Sun


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email