Hello, all, We have heard many times that MAP is completely specified, and has been extensively tested. Yet: - mapping rules of tested configurations have not been provided - several missing points of the MAP-T+E specification have been identified (ref (*) www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04049.html).
This mail is just about ONE of these, the hub-and-spoke issue. It has been discussed several times but AFAIK still without a complete answer. The difficulty is that: - The MAP-DHCPv6 draft has no parameter to indicate whether the ISP-chosen topology is mesh or hub-and-spoke. - According to the MAP-address-and-port draft, "each MAP node in the domain has the same set of rules". - As answered in the mail below, the choice "needs to be provisioned. either explicitly or implicitly (via the rules)". Questions I have are then: - Is the choice provisioned explicitly, implicitly, or possibly both? - How? - Which tests have confirmed that it worked? Answer by any one who asserts he or she understands how MAP works will be welcome. Thanks, RD > De : Ole Trøan <[email protected]> > Date : 2012-03-14 14:29 > À : Rémi Després <[email protected]> > Cc : Tomasz Mrugalski <[email protected]>, Softwires WG > <[email protected]> > Objet : Rép : [Softwires] Question about hub-and-spoke operation in MAP > > Remi, > >> I couldn't figure out by how CEs can be required to work hub-and-spoke >> without some DHCPv6 indication: >> - If two CEs apply the same BMR to their delegated IPv6 prefixes, how do >> they know whether their ISP expects direct paths between them (mesh) or BR >> hairpinning (hub-and-spoke)? >> > > that's correct it needs to be provisioned. either explicitly or implicitly > (via the rules). > > cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
