IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B0F21F89DB; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rnFjRnyQ-cZJ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D16321F8659; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 68C0C2DC15B; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:47:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.27]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4C74735C048; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:47:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.7]) by PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.27]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:47:55 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:47:55 +0200
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
Thread-Index: AQHOMJJp/YY1cyxg9k6UgkiMhZ9juZjS+0CAgARU0wCAAB0NAIAAYyWA//+MfECAAH0NgP//jt3QgAB5b4D//4tVwA==
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C673@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <1365009642.19971.22.camel@marcin-lenovo> <515C69A4.7000903@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C0C5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <30C6E4B0-BD31-4FB9-BE94-5FD8B9A1C57E@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C39B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751488C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C5F3@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775148BEF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EC2D7C645@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775148D9E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775148D9E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.4.15.134520
Cc: "Softwires (softwires@ietf.org)" <softwires@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Qi Sun <sunqi.thu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:47:57 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email