Re: [dhcwg] about v4configuration and co (1)

[Francis Dupont <[e-mail]>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  my favourite implementation does indeed use the IP stack.  that IP
>  stack supports sending packets to the broadcast address from the
>  unspecified address.

=> this is really not standard: usually when the source address
is left unspecified the kernel replaces it by one of the addresses
of the host...

>  no magic with regards to that. my favourite implementation also give
>  direct access from applications to the link-layer for that matter. ;-)

=> this is common to all OSs, unfortunately without a standardized way.

>  I don't understand what you mean by "not described in the specs".

=> there is no "DHCP over foo" for a generic foo, even for a generic
tunnel. In fact DHCP (and BOOTP) has to be specialized for each
link (hardware in specs) layer, so have to be described in some specs.

>  you state that "IPv4 address provisioning should not run over the IPv4
>  data path".

=> yes, it is my opinion and it seems this opinion is shared by
many other persons in the list.

>  what makes a softwire different from an Ethernet?

=> Ethernet is a hardware link layer

>  what makes this link-type so different that we need to
>  invent new provisioning mechanics for it?

=> separation of control and data planes, or with other words
simpler bootstrap/setup without a critical element (the source
IPv4 address) unknown a priori.

>  when we designed e.g. 6rd and MAP that was certainly not the intention.

=> if we have today this discussion it is because the problem was not
addressed from the beginning in the design.

Regards

[e-mail]