Yiu, > 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.
I am not sure why you are thinking MAP-E 1:1 as the stateful solution. BR just has the configuration (not state). I think the stateless does not mean "no configuration". Thanks, Tetsuya _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
