On Nov 10, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Qiong wrote: > Hi Ole, > > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > [Qiong] Actually, that's not the same. If we only need /32, there is no need > to do LPM implementation anymore, only exact matching is needed and this is > much eaiser than LPM. LPM is not optimized for /32 routing lookup. > The reason that current routers still implement LPM rather not exact matching > is because /32 is a truely corner case in RIB. However, if /32 is not a > corner case, but is the major requirement for operators, I believe more > efficient way should be introduced.
The PPP protocol is the same whether it is used on a router to router serial link or a BNG terminating 100,000s of PPPoE and L2TP sessions. DHCP is still DHCP whether being used to provision millions of routers in a broadband network, a few in your home, on a wireless or wired enterprise network, etc. etc... Of course implementations are optimized and scaled differently, and may even have different tweaks or options depending on how it is being used, but the protocol itself is the same whether it is used in one type of deployment or another. Should we have had separate RFCs and marketing names for every environment PPP and DHCP have been used in? - Mark > > Best wishes > Qiong > > 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 > > > > -- > ============================================== > Qiong Sun > China Telecom Beijing Research Institude > > > Open source code: > lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/ > PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ > =============================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
