Well, make sure you send your comments to softwire since they have to sort this out.
/js On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:11:13PM +0000, tom petch wrote: > I wonder if anyone else on this list has looked at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/ > currently in IETF Last Call. > > It provides management for three tunnel types, Lw4o6, MAP-E and MAP-T > betweeen CPE and Border Relay. It defines a CPE module, a BR module and > a module of common definitions. > > It does not provide identities for the three tunnel types; rather, where > it augments "/if:interfaces/if:interface" it specifies > when "if:type = 'ianaift:tunnel'"; > which to me says that a MAP-E (e.g.) specific object will get added to > each and every tunnel of whatever type, which seems excessive. > > Second, it defines four features, softwire-ce:algorithm (i.e. > MAP-E/MAP-T) and softwire-ce:binding (i.e. Lw4o6) in the CPE module and > then again softwire-br:algorithm and softwire-br:binding in the BR > module. It is unclear to me, from the I-D, whether support is for MAP-T > and MAP-E; or either MAP-T or MAP-E - I find the I-D ambiguous on that > point - but I would have expected there to be either two - Lw4o6 and > MAP-ET - or three - Lw4o6, MAP-E and MAP-T features, not four; and for > the features to be defined, along with tunnel identities, in the common > module. > > Odd, IMHO. > > Tom Petch > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
