hi Satoru-san, 2012/6/27 Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]>
> Hi Maoke, Woj, > > Two points. > > On 2012/06/27, at 17:43, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > > 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. > > In addition, any provisioning protocol could be used in MAP. But using > these protocol in LW46 basis, DHCPv4-over-IPv6 and PCP in particular, > absolutely out of scope for MAP. > > > > > > 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) > > Described text for '1:1 mode' in current version would make some people > confused. We need to make clear for that. > i fully agree with you as zero-lengthed EA-bits is a naturally possible case of MAP. however, to my understanding, even in this case the Figure 7 of MAP addressing architecture is still appliable and therefore it implies PSID length also equals to zero. this is the real meaning of 1:1 that is a natural case possibly occurs rather than a "mode" - mode is a sort of preset configuration. and further, it is not necessary to disable NAT44 in such EA-null/PSID-null cases at CE. this definitely makes the MAP spec clear. if necessary, including this special case in the MAP draft or in the MAP deployment draft, mentioning its usage, is what i support unless we discover any other flaws regarding this. cheers, maoke > > cheers, > --satoru
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
