ydahhrk
commented
9 years ago https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cui-intarea-464xlat-prefix-dhcp/
This one seems dead. I guess others use vendor-specific protocols, seeing that for example the option code was never assigned (p. 3). This being the case, it doesn't look implementable.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-v6ops-xlat-multi/
From section 4.2, it seems this is asking for a SIIT pool4. Or more like pool6 should store multiple prefixes, and each prefix should be mapped to N IPv4 prefixes. This is fair game, regardless of the draft's background, although it's to some extent redundant, as something similar can be achieved via EAM.
This might also be implemented by having several CLATs receiving different traffic. This can already be done by having several SIIT Jools, though #140 would make it more elegant (not having to scatter them through different nodes).
Section 4.1 also asks for a "Prefix Management Server". It's not clear to me what this, what it serves or who's supposed to query it (seeing that the CLAT also has Prefix Discovery). This draft looks a tad too young for my tastes.
Any opinions? I don't really know what to do.
patybarron
Hi!
Only I like to recommend those drafts
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cui-intarea-464xlat-prefix-dhcp/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-v6ops-xlat-multi/
Greetings!