Remi, a site already using subnet 0 may require renumbering. would you be satisfied if the draft said so?
cheers, Ole On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:39 , softwire issue tracker wrote: > #5: Problems of MAP-T and MAP-E with sites that already use subnet ID = 0 > > Changes (by remi.despres@…): > > * status: closed => reopened > * resolution: invalid => > > > Comment: > > Acknowledged: "exclusive use" of subnet 0 is improper since only one or > several interface IDs are exclusive to MAP (several if the site is > assigned an IPv4 prefix). Yet: > 1. If a site uses subnet 0, and one of its host uses a MAP-exclusive > interface ID (which, although unlikely, is possible), a conflict appears > when MAP gets activated. > 2. By avoiding any restriction on subnet 0 (e.g. with the V octet of 4rd), > one avoids to depend on "further operator input" before considering that > all needs are covered. > > -- > ----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- > Reporter: despres.remi@… | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire-map@… > Type: defect | Status: reopened > Priority: critical | Milestone: > Component: map | Version: > Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: > Keywords: map-t map-e subnet- | > ID | > ----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- > > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/5#comment:3> > softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
