Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => I am not convinced by 6to4. For instance by the 6to4-relay concept.
   
   6to4 relays cause some rather interesting problems, especially relating to 
   quality of service (too few of them at the moment, leading to huge 
   delays connecting to 6to4 nodes from some areas).
   
=> I had more security issues in mind...

   >    I'm not yet convinced of this.  Especially I have huge doubts about 
   >    temporary address management scalability and robustness.
   >    
   > => this address management is exactly the current DHCPv4 address management
   > (I agree this is not a real answer :-).
   
   No it *definitely* isn't, or I've misunderstood the intent.

=> IMHO the second (:-).

   What has been
   proposed is something like 'when application requests and address, get it
   from somewhere, after application exists, return it'.

=> no, the address is renew if it is still in used and it is returned
after a delay (i.e., one checks from time to time if it is used and
returns it if not. Of course the initial delay is greater).

   Add the ports option to the stew and you have a mess..

=> I don't like the ports option (too close to NAT).
   
   Running DHCPv4 over DSTM (with reasonable address lifetimes etc.) would
   sound much better than currently proposed.
   
=> I believe you have misunderstood the proposal: it works exactly like
DHCPv4, the only difference is the allocation (request) is done only
when needed, not a priori. And in our implementation the allocation
control is performed by a reused DHCPv4 code...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr