Le 2012-02-16 à 13:52, Ole Trøan a écrit : > Remi, > > [...] > >>>> 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. >> >> AFAIK, this statement makes sense only if you assume that the 4-bit NTT >> suffix is set to 0 in all customer sites. >> If this is assumed, it is a great simplification of the problem. >> It deserves to be clearly stated. > > MAP specifies a subnet-id of 0. those are the bits between the End-user IPv6 > prefix length and the interface-id. > e.g. if a /56 is delegated there will be 8 bits of 0. we have discussed if > this needs to be configurable.
Discussed, OK, but concluded what? BTW, if the MAP team debates would be on a list having ITEF archives, contributions by members of the WG would be easier, IMHO. Could you ask the WG chair to open such a mailing list? >> With this assumption, the suffix parameter is indeed no longer needed (not >> more for 4rd-U than for MAP). > > regardless of what the suffix parameter is. 0xF or 0x0. it has to be the same > across the domain. Having it the same for CEs whose IPv6 prefixes match the same mapping rule could be more flexible, but agreed, imposing that it is the same for each domain should be sufficient (this is the choice made for 4rd-U). > in the 3rd party CPE use case, which prefixes are available to the 3rd party > CPE may be outside of your control. In this case, a Domain IPv6 suffix is needed. The question therefore remains: is there a need or not to support this use case. Without a response from Satoru-san, it might be assumed, by default, that the NTT CPE example is no longer of interest. But, if the need is confirmed, a Domain IPv6 suffix is AFAIK needed. > > the 3rd party model has the following issues: > - how to get routing for the MAP prefix > - how does prefix assignment work at all (general IPv6 problem) Not understood. > - how is the mechanism provisioned? there is no DHCPv6 path, unless the 3rd > party CPE has a tunnel > "home" The use case description includes that the NTT CPE of a /48 site delegates a /52 prefix to the CE. Isn't this sufficient? RD BTW, you asked me, to understand one of your points to "see Satoru-san's presentation from the Paris last week for details" . Can you provide what I should see (or replace it in some way)? > > cheers, > Ole > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
