Yiu, > 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.
all nodes in a MAP domain must have the same rules. in 1:1 mode there is only the CE and the BR in the domain. having an aggregate route e.g. an IPv4 /24 or a host route a /32 doesn't mean you need a different RIB implementation. a host route which is what we have in 1:1 mode is just a corner case. what is "completely different" about it? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
