I have a question for the HA design concept of MAP-E 1:1. The central theme of MAP-E is to make BR as stateless as possible and use Anycast address to identify the MAP-E BR. However, if we use MAP-E 1:1 mode, the operator must have to pre-provision all the subscribe rules to all the BRs sharing the same Anycast address for reliable HA. This requires operators to carefully plan out which BRs support which subscribers. It is because BR is "per-subscriber stateful" in MAP-E 1:1 mode. Compared to the MAP-E design, HA in MAP-E only requires the operators to use the same set of rules to cover the entire domain. IMHO, this contradicts the original spirit of stateless solution and always puzzles me why MAP-E 1:1 bears the MAP-E name. MAP-E and 1:1 MAP-E are two completely different solutions and target to different deployment scenarios. I would love to hear others to comment in the ML how to resolve this issue.
Thanks, Yiu
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
