Remi,
> Your comments about the following feature-comparison item have been:
> - "possible with MAP-{E,T} too, but may require coordination of subnet
> numbering."
> - "I don't see the point of having text in the specification for this use
> case. it is a deployment option."
>
> +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
> | | Feature (based on CURRENT drafts) | MAP | MAP | 4rd | 4rd |
> | | | -T | -E | -H | -E |
> +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
> ...
> | | | | | | |
> | 3 | Possible support of CEs behind | N | N | Y | Y |
> | | third-party CPEs | | | | |
>
> But, AFAIK, it is not possible to configure a MAP domain for CEs attached to
> third-party CPEs (ref. use case 5.2.2 of the 4rd-U draft).
>
> 2.
> To deal with some similar use cases, we had an optional Suffix parameter of
> Mapping rules in draft draft-despres-intarea-4rd-01 (of which co-authors were
> R. Després, S. Matsushima, T. Murakami, ... and yourself).
>
> Having not seen in the WG that the need had disappeared, nor that another way
> to satisfy the need had been discussed, I did include the Suffix parameter in
> 4rd-U.
>
> 3.
> A somewhat detailed explanation about this need, received in the past and
> IMHO clarifying, was something like this:
>
> "For the instance, in Japan, NTT provides the access line to the end-users
> and ISPs provides the internet service over this access line. Sometimes, NTT
> CPE is located in front of the ISP's 4rd CE. Sometimes, only the ISP's 4rd CE
> is located at home as shown below.
>
> --<ipv6>-- NTT CPE ---- ISP CE ----
>
> --<ipv6>-- ISP CE --
I would not expect those two cases would be in the same MAP domain. even though
they could.
> It depends on the end-users' contract. If the end-user is getting some
> services from NTT, the NTT CPE is located at home and the ISP CE is located
> behind the NTT CE. If the end-user is not getting such a service, only ISP CE
> is located at home.
not quite. see Satoru-san's presentation from the Paris last week for details.
> In both cases, the IPv6 network infrastructure assigns an IPv6 prefix to the
> customer site. If present, the NTT CPE receives an IPv6 prefix and then
> delegates a longer IPv6 prefix to the ISP CE. For example, a /48 IPv6 prefix
> is assigned to the NTT CPE, and the NTT CPE delegates a /52 after adding a
> 4bit suffix to the ISP CE. But in other cases, if the ISP CE is directly
> connected to the IPv6 network infrastructure, the ISP CE can get an IPv6
> prefix without any suffix.
>
> So, in one 4rd domain, some ISP CEs get shorter IPv6 prefixes directly from
> the IPv6 network (say /48) and some other ISP CEs get longer IPv6 prefixes
> from NTT CPEs (say /52). This means that the delegated IPv6 prefix consists
> of the Domain IPv6 prefix followed by EA bits, if the ISP CE is directly
> connected to the IPv6 network, and that the delegated prefix consists of the
> Domain IPv6 prefix, followed by EA bits, and followed by the added suffix if
> the ISP CE is connected to another CE."
the End-user IPv6 prefix must be of the same length for all CEs using the same
mapping rule.
> 4.
> Without a suffix parameter in mapping rules that applies to CEs behind a
> third-party CPEs, CPE added suffixes would be included in EA bits. They would
> therefore be present as lower parts of PSIDs of CE that have shared IPv4
> addresses.
> I don't see how this could work.
incorrect, MAP includes an EA-bits length parameter. the EA-bits are included
in the topmost End-user IPv6 prefix (in your example above).
> 5.
> Of course, the suffix parameter can be added to MAP if decided (no problem
> with that), but the feature comparison table remains based on existing drafts.
not, needed. the MAP subnet-id is defined to be 0.
> Hoping this clarifies this issue, I welcome questions and comments from
> anyone in the WG, in particular from the MAP design team.
MAP supports "3rd party CPEs". (assuming all the other problems associated with
provisioning are resolved.)
it also solves the case of directly connected and 3rd party CPEs within the
same MAP domain. albeit I've never ever heard that as a real use case.
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
