Remi, you're apparently confusing matters. There is no need to have a DHCPv6 option, or a million node deployment to test MAP implementations. DS-lite is a good example, with implementations and standards track before the DHCPv6 option.
Needless to say, if you're implying that tests of MAP without testing the standards based DHCPv6 option are insufficient, then any test of 4rd-u or anything for that matter without using the fully standards DHCP option would be equally flawed. At the very least however, MAP does not need to prove on thing: Compatibility with IPv6, which 4rd-u would need to. -Woj. On 10 April 2012 11:37, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
