[dhcwg] Re: dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra: source addrs / server I D

[Forgot to include lists … so resending.]

Yeah, but if clients are using ipv4 for communication, something will need an address to route the packets? Otherwise, why bother with v4?

Anyway, let’s see what more they provide in a revised draft. We aren’t doing an adoption call at this time - we wanted to see a revised draft first.

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Jul 25, 2024, at 1:16 PM, David 'equinox' Lamparter <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 02:00:10AM +0200, David 'equinox' Lamparter wrote:
>> after a quick read of draft-porfiri-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-ra-00, I have
>> 2 things that are not "immediately obvious" to me:
> 
> P.S.: despite these questions, I do support adoption of this draft (yes,
> wrong thread for that, but context here...); it seems a good idea
> overall and these bits can be worked out on a WG document.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]