Hi Maoke, inline...
On 27 June 2012 05:28, Maoke <[email protected]> wrote: > hi dear authors, > > as the map-00 draft contains the normative 1:1 mode statement that is new > in comparison to the previous versions, i'd like to ask some technical > questions in order to clarify the understanding. > > Section 4. page 9: > > MAP can also be provisioned in 1:1 mode. In 1:1 mode the BR has a > MAP domain per subscriber, and the CE is configured in hub and spoke > mode, with only a DMR and no other mapping rules. This allows for a > mode where the BR has one rule per subscriber and the provisioning of > IPv4 address or prefix and port sets is independent of the End-User > IPv6 prefix. > > Question #1: who is a "subscriber"? the definition is missing. and > relatedly, what is the protocol for the subscription? the specification on > the protocol is missing too. > Answer 1: Subscriber = MAP CE. We will clarify the term. > > Question #2: what is the relationship between 1:1 mode, encapsulation > mode, translation mode, hub&spoke mode, mesh mode? are they independent to > each other, exclusively or not, somehow orthogonal or not? the > specification on the "mode" is missing. > Answer 2: mode = forwarding mode, also known as transport mode. There are two of these, translation and encapsulation. No relation between the rest of the things you mention. > > Question #3: what is the resource for deployment of a "MAP domain"? the > MAP spec never define that. however, we kept understanding that the > resource for a "MAP domain" includes: > - an IPv4 prefix (with prefix length 32 or less) shared by > CEs in this domain > - an IPv6 prefix (with prefix length 64 or less) delegated to > the CEs in this domain with a /64 (or shorter) per CE (as the basic model > of prefix d > the newly introduced "1:1 mode" obviously abandons this > understanding, then an explicit definition on the resource of a "MAP > domain" is requested. this is the origin and essential starting point of > the MAP deployment. > Answer 3: What do you mean by resource for deployment?? It has, and always has been an IPv6 prefix and an IPv4 address. This is the same in *all* of this solution space. The split in terms of how one arrives at the IPv4 address and port-range has always been variable in MAP. Additional point: There is no newly introduced 1:1 mode, as the spec hasn't changed. Folks who implemented according to the previous spec, whihc you seem to indicate had no 1:1 mode see no difference. Disabling the 1:1 mode would actually require a spec change. > > Section 5. page 10: > > * Forwarding mode > > Question #4: this appears twice at the definition of BMR and DMR, > respectively. though Wojieich and Remi has discussed that in another > thread, i would like to confirm: is this mode a domain configuration > parameter or a rule parameter? > Answer 4: Confirmed, intent is for it to be per domain. > > Question #5: does this "forwarding mode" is a enumerate type of {MAP-T, > MAP-E, 1:1, hub&spoke, mesh} or else, e.g., {MAP-T, MAP-E} x {1:1, N:1} x > {hub&spoke, mesh}, where the "x" is the operator for de Cartesian product > of sets? (related to #2) > Answer 5: No need to enumerate, because there is no relation between these (answered above) > > Section 7.1 page 19: > > In 1:1 mode, the MAP CE is provisioned with only a Default Mapping > Rule, and the full IPv4 address/prefix and port range is provisioned > using the DHCP option. > > Question #6: is the CE or the subscriber the receiver of the "full IPv4 > address/prefix and port range" (correction: port set) to be provisioned? or > does it mean a CE is a subscriber itself in the 1:1 mode? > Woj> MAP CE. > > Section 7.3 page 19: > > A MAP-E CE provisioned with only a Default Mapping Rule, as in the > 1:1 case, and with no IPv4 address and port range configured by other > means, MUST disable its NAT44 functionality. > > Question #7: this text is contradictory with Section 7.1. is the DHCP > option a sort of "other means" or not, or there's something out of scope of > this draft? > Woj> DHCP is a provisioning mechanism which MAP *can* use, but nothing in the architecture prevents any other provisioning mechanisms to be used incl dhcpv4, snmp, etc. > > Question #8: what is the consequence of disabling the NAT44 functionality > on CE when a subscriber having a PSID of a share IPv4 address is running > behind that CE as a 1:1 mode domain? > Woj> That is not possible. We can be clearer in saying that if the CPE has no IPv4 address configured then NAT44 is to be disabled (kind of obvious) > > before all of the above questions and further questions possibly to be > generated during the discussion are fully clarified, i cannot help but > gently show my disagreement on putting the current draft as working group > result. i also hope the MAP spec authors kindly understand with so many > uncertainty modifying MAP deployment draft to fit the MAP spec is a > mission-impossible for the time being. > Woj> What is the basis of your gentle disagreement, and its timing now? The merged of the drafts was discussed previously, and circulated on the design team of which you are a apart of. It appears your comments relate to the supposed controversial 1:1 non-normative text. Regards, Woj. > > thanks and regards, > maoke > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
