Hi, Tomek, AFAIK, deciding whether hub-and-spoke selection is implicit by mapping rules or explicit with a parameter is a more general matter than an option or sub-optiuon format.
I know you can adapt to any choice made by the team in this respect. What remains is that we still don't know whether it is possible to make it implicitly or not. Th fact that DHCPv6 provisioning hasn't been tested, if confirmed, isn't a big deal at all IMHO, but the question was worth asking. What is more significant is that nobody seems to be able to say, today, whether it can be implicit or not, and how it will work. Regards, RD Le 2012-04-10 à 13:52, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit : > 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
