Sure, and it is really a deployment choice (just like it is a deployment choice to use a dynamic routing protocol to advertise host routes or summary routes or both in an IP network). But that's not to say that we need one protocol for advertising the host routes, and another for advertising the summary routes.
Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Yiu Lee <[email protected]> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 1:33 PM To: Rajiv Asati <[email protected]>, Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E 1:1 for HA >I am not talking about whether a MAP-domain should support 1 or N CEs. >What I am trying to say is MAP-E 1:1 requires the BR to know per >subscriber information and the operator must pre-provision per-subscriber >based rules to every BR in the same domain. In addition, the BR can't use >programatic logic to reduce states. When the WG first decided to work on a >"stateless" solution, the goal was to make BR as stateless as possible. >MAP-E 1:1 in contrast requires to store all subscriber rules in the BR and >can't derive the CE's IPv6 address using programatic logic. I found it odd >to include MAP-1 1:1 be part of a stateless solution. MAP-E 1:1 looks a >stateful solution to me. > > >On 11/10/12 1:34 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>One can define a MAP-domain consisting of 1 CE or N CEs. This is more of >>a >>deployment choice. >> >>Cheers, >>Rajiv >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: <Lee>, Yiu Lee <[email protected]> >>Date: Friday, November 9, 2012 2:43 PM >>To: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> >>Subject: [Softwires] MAP-E 1:1 for HA >> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
