On 10.04.2012 11:51, Wojciech Dec wrote: > 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.
> On 10 April 2012 11:37, Rémi Després <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > The difficulty is that: > - The MAP-DHCPv6 draft has no parameter to indicate whether the > ISP-chosen topology is mesh or hub-and-spoke. Guys, Please be reasonable. DHCP provisioning is trivial compared to other MAP/4rd-U aspects. It is not relevant for core aspects of the technology comparisons. My advice to people who spend their time on "my solution is better than yours" discussions: Forget about DHCP for now and focus on more important aspects. My personal opinion is that DHCP does not matter at this stage. Sure, it will be needed eventually, but you can *now* test implementations that are statically configured. Now, to the actual question about hub&spoke. We assumed that CE can detect on its own if it is running in hub&spoke or mesh topology by analyzing received rules. See last paragraph of section 4.2 of mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option that explain this simple algorithm (if it can be called an algorithm at all - it is a simple "if" statement). Honestly speaking as a co-author of MAP DHCP option draft, I didn't want to spend too much time on this *yet*. That is also one of the reasons why I didn't look at 4rd-U DHCP option yet. It changes too greatly between revisions. Cheers, Tomek _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
