Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi, 

There is no need to over-specify for MAP-E, here. The use of the DHCPv6 option to provision the CE is sufficient.

RFC7084-bis should not require more than what was recorded in the specification of each mechanism. Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
> Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 17:49
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-
> 00.txt
> 
> I see your point, but then, if we follow the text in RFC7618:
> 
> Applicability Statement
> 
>    The solution allows multiple hosts to be simultaneously allocated the
>    same IP address.  As the IP address is no longer a unique identifier
>    for a host, this solution is only suitable for specific architectures
>    based on the Address plus Port model (A+P) [RFC6346].  Specifically,
>    this document presents a solution that applies to [RFC7596] and
>    certain configurations of [RFC7597] (e.g., Embedded Address bit
>    (EA-bit) length set to 0).
> 
> It seems a discrepancy not asking for DHCP 4o6 as well in MAP-E.
> 
> Should either that be clarified in RFC7618, and meanwhile we should
> include (in RFC7084-bis) for MAP-E support as MAY for both DHCP 4o6 and
> RFC7618.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: <[e-mail]>
> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 16:56
> Para: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: RE: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-
> 00.txt
> 
>     Re-,
> 
>     Listing RFC7618 for MAP-E is odd if DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 is not required
> for MAP-E.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     Med
> 
>     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET
>     > MARTINEZ
>     > Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 16:42
>     > À : [e-mail]
>     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-
> rfc7084-bis-
>     > 00.txt
>     >
>     > Hi Mohamed,
>     >
>     > In-line
>     >
>     > Saludos,
>     > Jordi
>     >
>     >
>     > -----Mensaje original-----
>     > De: <[e-mail]>
>     > Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>     > Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 16:21
>     > Para: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>     > "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>     > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-
> rfc7084-bis-
>     > 00.txt
>     >
>     >     Re-,
>     >
>     >     Please see inline.
>     >
>     >     Cheers,
>     >     Med
>     >
>     >     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI
> PALET
>     >     > MARTINEZ
>     >     > Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 15:38
>     >     > À : [e-mail]
>     >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-
>     > rfc7084-bis-
>     >     > 00.txt
>     >     >
>     >     > Hi all,
>     >     >
>     >     > Thanks all for the inputs.
>     >     >
>     >     > Responding on this to Mohamed, Masanobu and Mikael.
>     >     >
>     >     > Fully agree. I’m editing a new version, which will remove the
> DHCP
>     > 4o6 for
>     >     > MAP E/T
>     >
>     >     [Med] OK, thank you.  I guess it was also removed for DS-Lite
> and
>     > XLAT.
>     >
>     >      and only keep it as a must for lw4o6.
>     >
>     > [Jordi] Yes, *only* keeping it for lw4o6
>     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Masanobu, I think it should be a must, to conform with
> RFC7596,
>     > where is
>     >     > already a MUST.
>     >     >
>     >     > Mohamed, Dyn-Shared-v4Alloc is already RFC7618. In RFC7596, it
> is a
>     > MAY,
>     >     > and seems to be applicable to both lw4o6 and MAP-E. Do you
> have an
>     > opinion
>     >     > about if we should make more explicit it, by including as MAY
>     > support for
>     >     > RFC7618 for both (lw4o6 and MAP-E) ?
>     >
>     >     [Med] A simple approach is to follow the requirements as worded
> in
>     > RFC7596 and RFC7597, i.e.,:
>     >     * no mention of RFC7618 for MAP-E
>     >     * use the same wording as in RFC7596 for lw4o6: MAY.
>     >
>     > [Jordi] I’m also considering using MAY for MAP-E, as it seems that,
>     > according to RFC7618 applicability statement it is used in certain
>     > configurations of MAP-E.
>     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Regards,
>     >     > Jordi
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > -----Mensaje original-----
>     >     > De: <[e-mail]>
>     >     > Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>     >     > Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 11:39
>     >     > Para: Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
>     >     > CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>     >     > "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>     >     > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-v6ops-
>     > rfc7084-bis-
>     >     > 00.txt
>     >     >
>     >     >     Re-,
>     >     >
>     >     >     I think we are in agreement, Mikael.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Actually, the only RFC that cites DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 is
> RFC7596.
>     > So,
>     >     > at most that item may be listed for lw4o6 but be removed from
> other
>     >     > sections.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Note that for RFC7596, it says the following:
>     >     >
>     >     >     " If stateful IPv4 configuration or
>     >     >       ^^
>     >     >        additional IPv4 configuration information is required,
> DHCP
>     > 4o6
>     >     >        [RFC7341] MUST be used."
>     >     >
>     >     >     And
>     >     >
>     >     >        In addition to the DHCPv6-based mechanism described in
>     > Section 5.1,
>     >     >        several other IPv4 provisioning protocols have been
>     > suggested.
>     >     > These
>     >     >        protocols MAY be implemented.  These alternatives
> include:
>     >     >        o  DHCPv4 over DHCPv6: [RFC7341] describes implementing
>     > DHCPv4
>     >     >           messages over an IPv6-only service provider's
> network.
>     > This
>     >     >           enables leasing of IPv4 addresses and makes DHCPv4
> options
>     >     >           available to the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 client.  An lwB4
> MAY
>     >     > implement
>     >     >
>     >     > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     >     >           [RFC7341] and [Dyn-Shared-v4Alloc] to retrieve a
> shared
>     > IPv4
>     >     >           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     >     >           address with a set of ports.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Cheers,
>     >     >     Med
>     >     >
>     >     >     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     >     >     > De : Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     >     >     > Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 09:29
>     >     >     > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
>     >     >     > Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>     >     >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-
> v6ops-
>     >     > rfc7084-bis-
>     >     >     > 00.txt
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, [e-mail] wrote:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > > [Med] DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 is not a required for many of
> the
>     >     > techniques
>     >     >     > > listed in this draft. I suggest to delete it from the
> text.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Hm, we still need to keep it for the mechanisms that
> actually
>     > need
>     >     > this,
>     >     >     > like lw4o6.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > I understand if it's removed for the ones that do not
> need it.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > --
>     >     >     > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > **********************************************
>     >     > IPv4 is over
>     >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     >     > http://www.consulintel.es
>     >     > The IPv6 Company
>     >     >
>     >     > This electronic message contains information which may be
> privileged
>     > or
>     >     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of
> the
>     >     > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient be
>     > aware
>     >     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
> contents of
>     > this
>     >     > information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > v6ops mailing list
>     >     > [e-mail]
>     >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > **********************************************
>     > IPv4 is over
>     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     > http://www.consulintel.es
>     > The IPv6 Company
>     >
>     > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or
>     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>     > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
> aware
>     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this
>     > information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops