> In customer SAMs, mapping rules are always acquired automatically. Fine, but who creates them in order from them to be acquired? Where do they come from? If there are a hundred million customer sites in the world, who or what creates their individual mapping rules?
Regards Brian On 2010-03-16 22:54, Rémi Després wrote: > Brian, > > Answers below. > > Le 16 mars 2010 à 03:58, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > >> 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. > > In customer SAMs, mapping rules are always acquired automatically. > In provider SAMs, there are many scenarios where it is reasonable to > configure them administratively. (This is like in 6rd, where 6rd parameters > are administratively configured in 6rd BRs, and automatically acquired by 6rd > CEs). > > >> It seems that for usage >> at Internet scale, the maps would have to be generated and propagated >> automatically. Isn't this a hard problem > > I am not sure to understand what you mean by "the map". > The hierarchy of exterior prefixes follows the classical model of CIDR > prefixes. That's all. > > The example of section 3.4 (the planned Telecom-Bretagne experiment) shows a > 2-layer hierarchy of SAM domains, which may be a partial answer. > > Besides, deriving provider-SAM rules from locally available parameters is > internal to each provider-side BR. > Where configuration of mapping rules in provider SAMs should be automated, > proprietary solutions are therefore possible. > (Having a standard for this can be nice, but is not necessary). > >> (exactly the same problem >> that arises for LISP)? Or have I misunderstood the deployment model? > > In my understanding, the fact that LISP addresses have a distinct format > makes it necessary that LISP be supported both in source and destination > domains that communicate across the Internet core. > On the contrary, SAM addresses are routable like any native addresses > everywhere outside of SAM domains themselves. > The deployment can therefore be incremental (similarly to that of 6rd, of > which SAM is an extension). > > RD > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
