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

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