Maoke - 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...
Satoru - Let's think that a CE provisioned with following BMR comes from MAP
DHCPv6 options.
BMR:
o Rule-ipv6-prefix : {exact matched with CE's delegated prefix} o
Rule-ipv4-prefix : x.x.x.x/32
o EA-length : 0
o Port-param option : {PSID/length}
This BMR could be a LW46 provisioning means.
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04466.html )
I don't think 'it implies PSID length also equals to zero' can be derived from
'zero-lengthed EA-bits' as per the example from Satoru.
On the other hand, when the text of '1:1 mode' and '1:1 case' is mentioned in
the draft, I'd like to know what the 1st '1' & the 2nd '1' stand for
respectively.
Best Regards,
Leaf
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Satoru Matsushima
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:02 PM
To: Maoke
Cc: Softwires-wg
Subject: Re: [Softwires] map-00: review on the mode 1:1
Hi Maoke-san,
On 2012/06/27, at 20:12, Maoke wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Right, it isn't a 'mode' which changes any MAP nature.
> 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.
Thanks for clarification.
cheers,
--satoru
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
