Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tomek,
  Can you please confirm that 

RSOO defined in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options-04 is for
DHCPv6 only. There's no need or intent to define similar option
for DHCPv4.

i.e. draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01  has no RSOO problem as in 
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17?

Thanks,

Behcet

> 
> Dear MEXT WG,
> Behcet asked me to review draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01.txt. It  refers to
> draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17.txt, so I'd like to briefly comment on  both of
> them.
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not involved in MEXT activity (nor do I  intend to). I'm
> quite familiar with DHCPv6 and to some extent DHCPv4  protocols, so my
> comments are related to those  aspects.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17:
> MIP6 Relay Agent Option defined in  Section 3.2 of
> draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 is specific to one option only. On  the other
> hand Ted's RSOO proposal is generic and can be applied to any  options.
> This make RSOO better approach. I strongly suggest to modify Section  3.2
> of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 to reference RSOO draft, rather than  define
> its own dedicated option.
> 
> draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01:
> In  Section 1 you enumerate all IPv4-IPv6 permutations, without any
> justification  why they are actually needed. What's the use case there?
> My understanding is  that there is Dual Stack mobile node. Is it supposed
> to do DHCPv4 only? Why?  If client visits network that is IPv4 only, how
> is it supposed to do  MIPv6?
> 
> If you have dual stack mobile node, it should run both DHCPv4 and  DHCPv6
> clients, each configuring its own protocol family.
> 
> I think  Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
> Agent Option is  defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
> is it supposed to  carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
> as defined in  mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
> would encapsulate  DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
> typically don't have  parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.
> 
> At current form, this  draft is unclear at best. Who is including
> OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option?  Relay?
> 
> My generic recommendation is that authors should should start  with:
> - explaining why you need this instead of using DHCPv4 for  IPv4
>   configuration and DHCPv6 for IPv6 configuration.
> - redesigning  those option to not requiring conveying DHCPv6 options in
>   DHCPv4.
> -  explain your use case and the rationale behind  it.
> 
> 
> References:
> RSOO  draft:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options/
> 
> Please  keep me on cc: as I'm not subscribed to mext mailing list.
> 
> -- 
> Tomek
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing  list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>