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

"Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com> Mon, 11 November 2013 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <wdec@cisco.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 C43F311E8168; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:38:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Ad9NZXlLPZrG; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:38:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E18511E80FA; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:38:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7853; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384173511; x=1385383111; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=1novzavmifHP+HkfQjrmFYDcqt/8IOjF8v190QphoTI=; b=G2x5AZ4dKc5T3P3fdcau+2kyNhqQykoRBya+qFqQLnIBQGui+8hlDFkS iVdgC4M5YUh288+0zNBX2Vr5Uv/Ab/H4crMf3nw7fVIHns0VxVptJbYuI 6AvbF8jPtuWMGsbaAZcvtdgQKQiLdXZU1XfO5Pk3WE12Eis8NqkVzy+2z Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAEnOgFKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEgQu6d4QcgTkWdIIlAQIEdAUSAQgOAwMBAiQEKBEUCQgBAQQOBRuHVAMPtEcNiWuMdYJhEQeEMAOWJIFrikSCDoU4gWiBPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,677,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="283248393"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2013 12:38:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rABCcSfC018762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:38:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.196]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:38:28 -0600
From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>
To: Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: Alignment between softwire-map-dhcp and dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 drafts
Thread-Index: Ac7e1L5mPJ6JmXHYTGG/XjGCLEur0QANLmEAAACIpYAAAGarAA==
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:38:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA68D8D.B4425%wdec@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+sHxFApa7Zxwx=BYhtHwY5wcsbU2axexDZr2CxeZhoiHWfTw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.7.130812
x-originating-ip: [10.61.111.80]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEA68D8DB4425wdecciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ifarrer@me.com" <ifarrer@me.com>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.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 12:39:15 -0000


From: Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com<mailto:gnocuil@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 11 November 2013 05:26
To: Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com<mailto:wdec@cisco.com>>
Cc: "ian.farrer@telekom.de<mailto:ian.farrer@telekom.de>" <ian.farrer@telekom.de<mailto:ian.farrer@telekom.de>>, "otroan@employees.org<mailto:otroan@employees.org>" <otroan@employees.org<mailto:otroan@employees.org>>, "ifarrer@me.com<mailto:ifarrer@me.com>" <ifarrer@me.com<mailto:ifarrer@me.com>>, "softwires@ietf.org<mailto:softwires@ietf.org>" <softwires@ietf.org<mailto:softwires@ietf.org>>, "dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp@tools.ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: Alignment between softwire-map-dhcp and dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 drafts

Hi Wocjeich,

2013/11/11 Wojciech Dec (wdec) <wdec@cisco.com<mailto:wdec@cisco.com>>
>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.

It's close, but not quite as MAP doesn't mandate stageful DHCP of any kind
(SLAAC can also be used).

I think this paragraph should be added.
For your concern, I think the text can be modified to:
  "This means that the lifetime of the IPv4 configuration is bound to the lifetime of the IPv6 configuration."

Well, not quite: The lifetime of the IPv4 configuration in MAP *can*, but doesn't have to be bound the IPv6 configuration.
As I said before, I do not think that the above "explanatory" text is suitable for this specification. The essence is that if someone want to use DHCPv4 (for DHCPv4 options, or DHCPv4 leases) then they should use DHCPv4 over DHCPv6.

-Wojciech.


Best Regards,
Cong