Rémi,
Let's take it for granted that
a) it is possible to design a general format for mapping rules,
that would work in a variety of scenarios including map-and-encap
and NAT;
b) the format and examples in the draft are complete and correct;
c) tunnel end points and NATs can be "taught" to obey such maps.
Then consider this:
> 2.7. Acquisition of Mapping Rules by Customer Nodes
>
> For early experimentations or advanced uses, a customer SAM may
> acquire the SAM rules of its SAM domain by administrative
> configuration. But for extensive deployments, they must be acquired
> automatically. The DHCP of [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 of [RFC3315]) can be
> used for this. Alternatively, in particular for scenarios where
> NAT44s have to be traversed, using the DNS as proposed in section 6
> of [DNS-SD] can be a better approach.
That implies that the map for a given point is acquired automatically,
but it doesn't explain how the map is created. It seems that for usage
at Internet scale, the maps would have to be generated and propagated
automatically. Isn't this a hard problem (exactly the same problem
that arises for LISP)? Or have I misunderstood the deployment model?
(I have asked in the past what mapping mechanism RANGER would use.
One answer to that question is: why not SAM? But then the question of
how the maps are generated remains.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
