Hi Remi, >> Do we need them to be sure in spite of we already have existing mature >> transport variants? > > MAP-E+T isn't as mature as repeatedly claimed. > MAP-T may be more imprecise than MAP-E in this respect, but both have known > bugs to be fixed (at least packet IDs of shared-addres CEs of MAP-T, and BR > hairpinning in MAP-E).
If you pointed out bugs in the text of MAP-E/MAP-T drafts, we will correct it soon. But what you pointed out in the above has been already tested with our implementation of MAP-T/MAP-E. So, our MAP-E/MAP-T implementation has already supported BR hairpinning (hub&spoke model). Thanks, Tetsuya Murakami _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
