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

["Yuchi Chen" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med and Yiu,

I agree with you, and also I think it's better if not any specific solution is mentioned in draft-scskf-*, as this draft is meant to be a general solution. Maybe the clarification on applicability scope could be like this: "this solution is most recommended for dynamic IPv4 allocation and IPv4 param provisioning". We can add a section to say that, or just say that in the Introduction section as the supplement of the motivation statement (i.e. "In addition to providing IPv4 addresses for clients of this service, other IPv4 configuration parameters may also need to be provided ...").

Best regards!



Yuchi Chen 

From: [e-mail]
Date: 2013-04-16 13:39
To: Lee, Yiu; Qi Sun
CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: 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:[e-mail]]
>Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 21:27
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; Qi Sun
>Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>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, "[e-mail]"
><[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 17:47
>>>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>>Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>[e-mail]
>>>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, <[e-mail]>
>>><[e-mail]> 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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 16:56
>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; [e-mail]
>>>>> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> 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, "[e-mail]"
>>>>> <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Envoyé : lundi 15 avril 2013 16:39
>>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>>>>>> Cc : Qi Sun; [e-mail]; Softwires ([e-mail])
>>>>>>> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-
>>>dhcpv6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 10:27 AM, <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Softwires mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires