Re: [Softwires] WGLC on draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-03 Fri, 15 April 2016 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13EF12DDE7; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.336
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCgVI0G8RaV0; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE5512DABB; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) by with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2016 08:41:18 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476A3D7883; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=vIlf2/x074z0wZqURZgFfyPJ2BQ=; b= IAzLI8J945w/6SDB/3bzqf0X4ukhRkR+jrqV4mBauZ6JXYegU79bX3HISLE/VsuS ufMrBUMvqdpu1zrlY3hw1zABjQ42Cjn/N6qAILk1qL1flAXkv8grn1OyCyzg9WEt uh9z7jr5R8eaKHhd6/JqelcuBj1ktbD/B4uUS5aCr2c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=bRRO73BzTb+4wNrv3S1fPLjf0n cXtB+RO6GOEtemOktCLDZzBQgsz6I/6EpGbyE7widm1k57i97KqFwEa5nJ+A18qx +cXIzsx4Ft5Iwv68Y2DUCjeNdxuWVZuw8PLSpcBV6DWhjCRI7Ckrq9+ai/e4l34g R1w/kfro/tUswriv4=
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2FA1D7882; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E301464F68; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:41:11 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E99B5197-88E0-4371-9030-0CC4850C3B11"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:41:10 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Yong Cui <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Softwires WG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WGLC on draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:41:22 -0000

Here are my comments from a quick glance. Apologies for being late.

Thanks for simplifying this document.
A much easier and less contentious read now.

I think it needs a little bit more detail and explanation before advancing though.

The document is lacking some detail. It mentions "DHCPv6 Offer", which in 3315 terminology I'm not sure what is.
In a 4-way DHCPv6 exchange, would the expectation be something like:

-> SOLICIT:  ORO includes MAP-E, LW46, and DS-lite and Priority option request.
<- ADVERTISE : includes priority option, with MAP-E, DS-lite and LW46 data objects (server might have reserved address at this point)
-> REQUEST: client only request the mechanism at the top of the list
<- REPLY: server assigns the addresses to client, and can free up resources reserved for the other mechanisms.

If I was an operator that had a fixed allocation of address to a given customer. Would I then put the same IPv4 address for each of the mechanisms in the ADVERTISE?

Do you need to say anything about how to deal with clients that do not support the priority option?


> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:55, Yong Cui <> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> The authors of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-03 believe this document is ready for advancement.
> We would like to issue a working group last call starting from today to April 5th.
> Please send your substantial comments to the list during the last call. You are also welcome to send your editorial comments directly to the authors.
> Thanks for reviewing the draft.
> Yong Cui, Suresh Krishnan and Ian Farrer
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list