On 2012/11/09, at 20:41, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> wrote: --snip-- >> 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?
+1. It is consistent with IP networking principle. BTW, to just clarify about map domain, cited from map-02 draft: > 3. Terminology > > > MAP domain: One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected to the > same virtual link. A service provider may > deploy a single MAP domain, or may utilize > multiple MAP domains. > cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
