The pre-standard-still-being-defined DHCPv6 option was not tested, and CLI based configuration including scripting was applied.
Question closed. -Woj. On 10 April 2012 12:01, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > Wojciech, > > This isn't answers to questions I asked. > They remain open. > > RD > > Le 2012-04-10 à 11:51, Wojciech Dec a écrit : > > 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
