RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Hi Pekka,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:18 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Francis Dupont; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; Brian E 
> Carpenter; Fred L.
> Templin; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops) 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > No it *definitely* isn't, or I've misunderstood the 
> intent.  What has
> > > been proposed is something like 'when application requests and
> > > address, get it from somewhere, after application exists, 
> return it'.  
> > > That's very far from DHCPv4.  Add the ports option to the 
> stew and you
> > > have a mess..
> > > 
> > > Running DHCPv4 over DSTM (with reasonable address lifetimes etc.)
> > > would sound much better than currently proposed.
> > 
> > Read the DSTM Assumptions in the Spec.  This just 
> frustrates me to no
> > end.  The DSTM assumption is as follows.  "THE USER DOES NOT WANT
> > ANYMORE IPv4 PROLIFERATION and forcing IPv6 deployment 
> native".  They do
> > not want to begin their new IPv6 networks or update their 
> networks with
> > DHCPv4.
> 
> Perhaps I failed to convey my intent or you misunderstood it.  
> 
> What I meant was v6-only network + DSTM _without_ temporary address 
> management.  IPv4 addresses would be handled over IPv6 
> tunnels by DHCPv4 
> server, not the temporary address management system.   The 
> only difference 
> would be using existing protocol DHCPv4 for the task;  
> temporary address 
> management would indeed also be possible, and perhaps even 
> useful in the 
> cases that addresses are used by a very small number of 
> applications for 
> short periods of time only.  But otherwise, it seems like a 
> complication 
> right now.

I responded why not DHCPv4 for the main DSTM spec in other mail last night.
But clearly there can be spec with DHCPv4 but that complicates DSTM and DHCPv6 fits exactly within the architecture of DSTM.

But as I said one user has chosen this path but more because there was no dhcpv6 implementation 6 months ago.

>  
> > And to answer Rob's question.  Yes I know many customers who do
> > understand the DSTM assumptions.
> > 
> > But one DSTM deployment is using DHCPv4 this way but only 
> because DHCPv6
> > was not done.  The prime systems integrator just delivered a dhcpv6
> > solution to resolve that.  Again this is a trial network 
> but it will be
> > the production network of tommorrow.
> > 
> > Have you read the latest DSTM spec (like you asked me about Teredo)?
> 
> Indeed, I have read the latest spec (but only cursorily, the 
> only major
> thing that has changed is the applicability statement).  I 
> also commented
> on -07 (and DSTM-* technologies) on the ngtrans list (17 Mar 
> 2002).  Have
> you read my comments (I have received zero direct feedback)?

Hmmm.  I recall Octavio responding to you?  Can you repost I don't store IETF mail normally and for DSTM I just scanned and cannot find your input?  The update to draft 7 was just applicability per Alain Durand as chair and author too.\

Was it technical issue or deployment issue?  

thanks

/jim

> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
> 
> 
>