Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


On 11 July 2013 15:04, Qi Sun <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Woj,
>
> > - Naming: The name of the option will be changed, tentatively, to
> OPTION_S46_*. This it in line with the recognition that there is wider
> applicability of the options.
>
> Would you please elaborate (sorry if I missed some of the discussions...)?
>

Yes, there was a long thread started by Tomek. Given that the option is
applicable beyond MAP a *suggestion* was to rename it. I'm personally ok
either way. The "Softwire46" option is the currently proposed name.


>
> > - Flags: The flags field will be removed from the options. To accomplish
> this, what was previously known as the BMR/FMR option, which was using the
> flag to make the difference, will now be recast as two separate "Basic
> Rule" and a "Forwarding Rule" Options.
>
> From my understanding, the 'flags' are referred to those in MAP Rule
> Option (rule-flags), right? Or do you mean the flags in MAP Container
> Option will also be removed?
>

All flag fields removed.

>
> > - A new sub-section intended only for clients using the MAP algorithm
> will be introduced, and will describe how the options apply to MAP
> provisioning.
>
> I'm not quite sure about the content that you plan to provide. IMHO, the
> DHCPv6 client (not a MAP DHCPv6 client) is only able to handle the DHCPv6
> related interactions, rather than MAP related interactions. If this part is
> about how the client side uses the MAP options, maybe the MAP-E or the
> Unified CPE is a more proper place to go, IMHO.
>

Well, the MAP Port Parameters option is clearly only applicable to a client
that understands what it means. While having a separate, standalone 1-page
draft for this single option is doable, it does become to look like
unnecessary bureaucracy. DHCP Options are options after all...

>
> In addition, I notice in the current MAP option draft, the offset in MAP
> Port Parameters Option is still 4, which is not consistent with the
> draft-ietf-softwire-map-07. Maybe you can update it as well.
>

Yes, that will be updated.

Thanks,
Woj.


>
>
> Best Regards,
> Qi
>
>
> On 2013-7-8, at 下午6:18, Wojciech Dec wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've begun preparing the next ste of changes to the DHCP MAP option
> draft, and would like to highlight the main changes.
> >
> > - Naming: The name of the option will be changed, tentatively, to
> OPTION_S46_*. This it in line with the recognition that there is wider
> applicability of the options. Furthermore the "Mapping" term will be
> removed from the text, except when describing their use with MAP algorithm.
> > - Default Mapping Rule: The DMR option will be removed, to allow the
> re-use of the existing AFTR option, if desired and when applicable.
> > - Flags: The flags field will be removed from the options. To accomplish
> this, what was previously known as the BMR/FMR option, which was using the
> flag to make the difference, will now be recast as two separate "Basic
> Rule" and a "Forwarding Rule" Options.
> > - Some of the generic DHCP requirements about known or unknown
> processing appear to actually conflict with DHCP practice and will be
> changed, eg an unknown sub-option should not lead to the entire option
> being discarded.
> > - A new sub-section intended only for clients using the MAP algorithm
> will be introduced, and will describe how the options apply to MAP
> provisioning.
> > - Various other editorial changes to bring the text into shape.
> >
> > If you have any initial comments, reactions to the above, please let us
> know.
> >
> > Regards,
> > W. Dec
> > _______________________________________________
> > Softwires mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>