Re: [Softwires] Softwires configuration via DHCP

["David W. Hankins" <[e-mail]>]

First, thank you Brian for responding and thinking about this, I do
appreciate it.  My writing style is sometimes dry.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:04:28AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Actually, wouldn't it allow a clever NAT to update session state
> automatically?

If you were to have two nodes sharing NAT mapping state, why would you
prefer to wait for DHCP renewal timers rather than to have the
surviving CGN simply take over routing for its peer's /128?  This is
the area of solutions I mean when I say I would expect 'tunnels' to
be handled by routing equipment, and solved with classic routing
solutions.

Surely by the time you are coordinating such NAT tables, the idea of
coordinating the use of /128s (fallbacks, anycasts) is trivial, and
preferrable to placing complications on the softwire-client end?

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins