Remi, As an observer, it seems as though you think you are running the WG rather than being a participant in it.
Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rémi Després Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:52 AM To: Wojciech Dec Cc: Softwires WG; [email protected]; Softwire Chairs Subject: Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Hub-and-spoke in MAP - How? Le 2012-04-10 à 12:07, Wojciech Dec a écrit : The pre-standard-still-being-defined DHCPv6 option was not tested, and CLI based configuration including scripting was applied. Question closed. For you, that's your choice, fair enough. But not closed for the WG: members deserve to know how CEs are proposed to know whether they must work in mesh or hub-an-spoke topology (even if MAP remains experimental). RD -Woj. On 10 April 2012 12:01, Rémi Després <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://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]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date : 2012-03-14 14:29 > À : Rémi Després <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc : Tomasz Mrugalski > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Softwires WG > <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
