Le 2012-03-09 à 17:48, Ole Trøan a écrit :
> Remi,
>
>> Sec. 4.4 of draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 says:
>> "Default Mapping Rule:
>> {2001:db8:0001:0000:<interface-id>:/128 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
>> 0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
>> 192.0.2.1 (BR IPv4 address)}
>>
>> Example 3: Default Mapping Rule
>>
>> In most implementations of a routing table, the next-hop address must be of
>> the same address family as the prefix. To satisfy this requirement a BR
>> IPv4 address is included in the rule. Giving a default route in the IPv4
>> routing table:
>> 0.0.0.0 -> 192.0.2.1, MAP-Interface0"
>>
>> I must admit I found this very confusing:
>> - It seems to be a purely internal matter, having therefore no place in a
>> proposed standard.
Not answered.
>> - In an internal IPv4 routing table, any never-assigned address seems
>> sufficient (no need for dependence on the BR IPv4 address).
>
> the idea of the BR also being part of the domain has some benefits.
> e.g. it is possible to IPv4 ping the default gateway. it isn't strictly
> necessary as you say, but I think it has value in troubleshooting.
>
>> - How a MAP-T CE could get the BR IPv4 address isn't specified (no DHCPv6
>> parameter specified for its transmission).
>
> manual configuration.
Are you really suggesting that MAP-T CEs would be manually configured?
RD
>
> cheers,
> Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
