Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 03 December 2013 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462731AE11B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:54:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qS4MBUVSbvyu for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CED1AE0FC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:54:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,817,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="993055"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2013 11:54:43 +0000
Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-75.cisco.com (dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-75.cisco.com [10.147.116.75]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB3BsaSx001283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:54:38 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A886E61B-9247-4633-92A0-5BAD06ACFC60"; 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: <EB4A3EBF-B08F-4465-A69B-63325E2E3EDA@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:54:40 +0100
Message-Id: <03FEB951-90D6-4DAF-9793-76ACFD1A30D3@employees.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>, <3219ECB2-F220-403B-984B-7254677528DE@employees.org> <70E0AB50-27FB-4388-96DB-F46D260E553B@cisco.com>, <77AB54E8-7150-49DC-A9B6-65CFCDA0D28A@employees.org> <EB4A3EBF-B08F-4465-A69B-63325E2E3EDA@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:54:48 -0000

Bernie,

> I don't understand your points here. Your solution is not what RFC 7040 references either. And in fact the dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 solution is very close to the dhcpv4-over-ipv6 solution as in some of the models it also only uses IPv6 packets. 

my point was that you've already put one alternative way of carrying DHCPv4 out there. my question was if you should try to put that cat back into the bag?

in any case, let's not digress on RFC7040. that wasn't the point.

it appears you think it is important that DHCPv4 uses "only IPv6 packets". that's what a tunnel does, why do you think DHCPv4 needs to build its own transport?

cheers,
Ole


> 
> - Bernie (from iPad)
> 
>> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:30 AM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Bernie,
>> 
>>> That's an informational RFC and references (informational) work in progress (which sometimes changes or is even abandoned). That's the risk the IETF acknowledges with such references.
>> 
>> you are saying that RFC7040 should be updated?
>> 
>>> If DHCPv4 works "as is", what more do you need from the DHC WG? Use DHCPv4 "as is" - what's stopping you?
>> 
>> to stop inventing solutions to non-existing problems.
>> 
>>> We are trying to solve the general problem when all that can be assured is the ability to send IPv6 packets.
>> 
>> I have asked multiple times for an explanation of what you are trying to achieve, and what makes this a "general problem".
>> I don't believe there is such a problem. and not one that makes sense in an A+P / softwire context.
>> 
>>> We will consider your objection during the rough consensus review.
>> 
>> I would expect so. note also for your shepherding document that I have threatened an appeal.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Ole
>> 
>> 
>>> - Bernie (from iPad)
>>> 
>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:21 PM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03.txt) believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 9th, 2013.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not support publication of this document.
>>>> I believe that using DHCPv4 as currently specified (RFC2131, RFC5107, RFC3456, RFC3046) is sufficient also for A+P softwire tunnels.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC7040 references DHCPv4 over IPv6. is this working group also going to specify this alternative transport?
>>>> 
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Ole
>>