IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A989B21F84B5; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 ZzP49PX0r9TO; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B824721F8464; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CC64022C4FA; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:57:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 873DC27C06E; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:57:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.7]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:57:37 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:57:36 +0200
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [Softwires] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
Thread-Index: Ac450zPa+M9NPtugRJKWH3rA1dxKDAAA3v2Q
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C586@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <1365009642.19971.22.camel@marcin-lenovo> <515C69A4.7000903@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C0C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <30C6E4B0-BD31-4FB9-BE94-5FD8B9A1C57E@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C39B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAAtO+X=dS6YOhdf1=cOS5yMisH0DQupzsi0a745BZdneMHtBxw@mail.gmail.com>, <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C478@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CEB7ADD2-C544-4CFF-BFFA-6404F726C7C2@cisco.com> <516BF023.5090707@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <516BF023.5090707@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.4.15.113320
Cc: "Softwires (softwires@ietf.org)" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:57:39 -0000

Hi Simon,

(cced softwire ML as this topic is of the interest of the wg too. This draft cannot be discussed without having the problem space to solve in mind)

With all due respect, complexifying the design because of a speculated need of IPv4-centric options in the future is not a valid argument IMHO.

RFC6333 is a typical example of a solution which shows we don't need at all DHCPv4 to offer IPv4 service continuity.

As discussed in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe/, very few parameters in addition to DS-Lite ones are needed to be configured to support MAP and LW4over6. Those few parameters can be packaged in one single DHCPv6 option and we are done.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
>Simon Perreault
>Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 14:19
>À : dhcwg@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] [Softwires] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-
>over-dhcpv6
>
>Le 2013-04-15 12:02, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit :
>> I agree with Med. In reality, it is highly unlikely that each and every
>> Dhcpv4 option would be needed for an ipv6 only host.
>
>Sure we can expect that today with the information we have at our
>disposal. But what will we do if in the future the situation changes,
>for whatever unanticipated reason, and we need more IPv4 options?
>Assuming we won't need more makes it very easy to paint ourselves into a
>corner.
>
>Simon
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email