>>> 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.
see two lines below.
>>> - 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?
no, sorry, I thought you asked how the BR was configured.
the CE can extract the BR IPv4 address from the BR IPv6 address.
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
