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

Hi Yiu,

Ted and Ian provided an important clarification on the applicability scope of draft-scskf-*. IMHO, this should be recorded in the draft not only in mailing list archives.

Having an applicability scope section in that draft would be useful.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com]
>Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 21:27
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; Qi Sun
>Cc : softwires@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org
>Objet : 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