On 2012/11/12, at 11:11, Ole Trøan wrote: > Yiu, > >>> From my perspective, the argument is not whether two protocols are >> identical or not. I found MAP-E 1:1 is a stateful solution. I found it odd >> to make it part of MAP-E which was originally decided a stateless solution. > > look at it as a slider. just like you can represent both aggregate routes > (/20, /24) and host routes (/32) in a RIB, > so you can in MAP. > you can make a data structure that only support host routes (LW46), but when > you have a data structure that supports > variable prefix lengths then host route support is part of the package. > > I don't think there is a way to take 1:1 mode out of MAP, even if we wanted > to.
+1. The host route (/32) is also part of the variable prefix length. Thanks, Tetsuya _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
