[MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
Tomasz Mrugalski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear MEXT WG, Behcet asked me to review draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01.txt. It refers to draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17.txt, so I'd like to briefly comment on both of them. Disclaimer: I'm not involved in MEXT activity (nor do I intend to). I'm quite familiar with DHCPv6 and to some extent DHCPv4 protocols, so my comments are related to those aspects. draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17: MIP6 Relay Agent Option defined in Section 3.2 of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 is specific to one option only. On the other hand Ted's RSOO proposal is generic and can be applied to any options. This make RSOO better approach. I strongly suggest to modify Section 3.2 of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 to reference RSOO draft, rather than define its own dedicated option. draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01: In Section 1 you enumerate all IPv4-IPv6 permutations, without any justification why they are actually needed. What's the use case there? My understanding is that there is Dual Stack mobile node. Is it supposed to do DHCPv4 only? Why? If client visits network that is IPv4 only, how is it supposed to do MIPv6? If you have dual stack mobile node, it should run both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 clients, each configuring its own protocol family. I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options, as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats. At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay? My generic recommendation is that authors should should start with: - explaining why you need this instead of using DHCPv4 for IPv4 configuration and DHCPv6 for IPv6 configuration. - redesigning those option to not requiring conveying DHCPv6 options in DHCPv4. - explain your use case and the rationale behind it. References: RSOO draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options/ Please keep me on cc: as I'm not subscribed to mext mailing list. -- Tomek