Woj, I got a general question. The current MAP support 1:1 mode where EA-bit is a full 32-bit address. Why we want to reinvent a wheel to create another 1:1 mode? The only difference is to move the configuration from DHCP server to rules in the BR. Did I miss something?
Thanks, Yiu From: Wojciech Dec <wdec.i...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 4:06 AM To: Qiong <bingxu...@gmail.com> Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Softwires] map-00: review on the mode 1:1 Qiong, On 21 July 2012 11:46, Qiong <bingxu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Woj, > > This is not only about determining which parameter to explicitly exist in MAP > rule, but also the configuration in BR. If you include PSID explicitly, then > 1) you need to configure per-subscriber rule in BR since the value of PSID for > different CPEs are different. This will take a lot of workload for operators > and it is obviously not the objective of any stateless solution. Stateless does not mean configuration less, and never did. Even without an explicit PSID one could have thousands of "rules" configured, if one chooses to deploy it that way. > 2) IPv6 prefix has already carry the PSID implicitly, and the PSID in MAP rule > is redundant. > Therefore, I don't see the reason to include PSID explicitly in MAP > architecture. So you don't disagree about the use, which is good. I'm however puzzled by why you see a need for a separate architecture document & specification to address the need for explicit port range, which the explicit PSID is, rather than working on a common solution... Regards, Woj. > > Best wishes > Qiong > > Wojciech Dec <wdec.i...@gmail.com>编写： > > > Remi, > > On 20 July 2012 17:03, Rémi Després <despres.r...@laposte.net> wrote: >> Hi, Wojciech, >> >> 2012-07-20 12:56, Wojciech Dec: >> >>> If the use of PSIDs in rules is useful, as it appears to be, >> >> This is the point that needs to be explained. > > The case is straightforward A+P. > For a single IPv4 address + port range it is desired to have it correspond to > an IPv6 address. > MAP and 4rd-u have that as a well established case with the IPv4 address and / > or PSID being mapped into the IPv6 prefix, but the IPv4 address not given that > it is configured on both sides (implicit). There is nothing in the MAP > architecture which restricts the PSID to not be such an implicit parameter > given that it can be configured at either side. > > -Woj. > > >> Thanks. >> RD >> >>> then there seems to be no reason not to allow that. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Woj. >>> >>>> >>>> - maoke >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Woj. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> Softwires@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
