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

Med,

I agree we can talk more motivations in the draft. However,
draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 discusses a generic specification of
DHCPv4 over DHCPv6. I am not sure what we want to mention specific to MAP
or lw4over6 in this draft.

Thanks,
Yiu

On 4/15/13 11:52 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com"
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

>Re-,
>
>Thanks for the explanations.
>
>I suggest the document to be updated to reflect the clarifications you
>provided and also the ones provided by Ian and Ted for MAP and Lw4over6
>cases. These are important inputs.
>
>I withdraw my objection to his document.
>
>Thank you all for your patient explanations.
>
>Cheers,
>Med
>
>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : Qi Sun [mailto:sunqi.thu@gmail.com]
>>Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 17:47
>>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>Cc : ian.farrer@telekom.de; Ted.Lemon@nominum.com; softwires@ietf.org;
>>dhcwg@ietf.org
>>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] [Softwires] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-
>>over-dhcpv6
>>
>>
>>Dear Med,
>>
>>In MAP-E pure stateless mode, IPv4 address (prefix) and port set are
>>provisioned in MAP Rules as designed. But in MAP-E 1:1 mode and lw4over6
>>which are (kind of) stateful, it has to take into considerations about
>>the
>>lease time etc. issues. In this case, IMHO, DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 is more
>>suitable for IPv4 related configurations.
>>
>>What's more, DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 is not only designed to deal with the
>>option issues, but also to handle other architectural problems in
>>transition (as Bernie mentioned in previous mail). So I think
>>DHCPv4-over-
>>DHCPv6 is helpful for the evolvement in DHCP architecture.
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Qi Sun
>>
>>
>>On 2013-4-15, at 下午11:13, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
>><mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>> I understood from your answer: dhcpv6 will be used for both MAP and
>>lw4over6 and both don't require draft-scskf-* for IP address + port
>>provisioning.
>>>
>>> Given currently no additional dhcpv4 only options is required for any
>>>of
>>the solutions we are discussing in softwire, I do still think it is not
>>justified to take on a solution for a problem which may not exist.
>>>
>>> draft-scskf-* proposal can be revived when there is a real need to
>>support dhcpv4-only options. No?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>>
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : ian.farrer@telekom.de [mailto:ian.farrer@telekom.de]
>>>> Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 16:56
>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
>>>> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org; sunqi.thu@gmail.com
>>>> Objet : Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] Adoption call on
>>>>draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-
>>>> over-dhcpv6
>>>>
>>>> Hi Med,
>>>>
>>>> It would still work for lw-4o6 and the unified CPE. All of the basic
>>>> params for configuring lw4o6/MAP1:1 can be provisioned through the
>>>> OPTION_MAP_BIND that is proposed in the unified CPE draft over DHCPv6.
>>>> Additional DHCPv4 only options would be done via the DHCPv4oDHCPv6
>>method
>>>> for both lw4o6 and MAP-E.
>>>>
>>>> We still need to agree on which option will be used for provisioning
>>>>the
>>>> address of the lwAFTR/MAP BR, however. There was some discussion on
>>>>this
>>>> on the SW ML last week, but no conclusion reached.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2013 16:47, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com"
>>>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Re-,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for clarifying Ted. I must admit this is not what I understood
>>>>> when I read draft-scskf-*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the same conclusion applies also for lw-4over6? (I'm naively
>>>>> assuming, given the approach defined in draft-ietf-softwire-unified-
>>cpe,
>>>>> the same dhcpv6 to configure MAP will also be used lw-4over6)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Med
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> De : Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
>>>>>> Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 16:39
>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>>>>> Cc : Qi Sun; dhcwg@ietf.org; Softwires (softwires@ietf.org)
>>>>>> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-
>>dhcpv6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:27 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you saying MAP is not a concerned with this draft and dhcpv6
>>>>>>>can
>>be
>>>>>> used for MAP?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For configuring the MAP-E prefix and port set, yes.   That was the
>>>>>> discussion we had in Softwires in Orlando: cover the easy stuff with
>>>>>> DHCPv6
>>>>>> (this is the existing DHCPv6 MAP option), and then if someone needs
>>>>>> legacy
>>>>>> IPv4 services or stateful address allocation, do it with
>>>>>>DHCPv4-over-
>>>>>> DHCPv6.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Softwires mailing list
>>>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>Softwires@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

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

Attachment: smime.p7s