Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option

[Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>]

> This draft does proposed a contiguous mask to allocate contiguous port-set. And the draft is a merged version of 
> draft-wu-dhc-port-set-option-00 and draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-04. The authors have reached the consensus to use mask for contiguous port-set allocation, which is easy to implement both for client and server.

if this proposal is also advocating a contiguous mask, then I don't understand why you cannot use the proposal in draft-ietf-softwire-map?

cheers,
Ole

>>>> without a "larger context" (i.e. some sort of encapsulation, how is that supposed to work? think ARP.
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear here, the DHC working group is not proposing to work on defining a way to share IP addresses.   The DHC working group is proposing to work on a way to convey a port range to a device which shares IP addresses, using DHCP.   Anything more than that would definitely be out of scope for DHC.
>>> 
>>> BTW, we discussed using port ranges versus using masks; the reason for using masks is that it's easier to do on the fast path than ranges.
>> 
>> right. draft-ietf-softwire-map uses a mask. you propose support for a  discontiguous mask, our proposal a contiguous one. anyhow, let us move this to softwire.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>