Hi Ole, From my perspective, your MAP 1:1 mapping table looks not so really like Lw4over6 binding table, which can be established in a static or dynamic way or both.
AFAIK all the 1:1 rules in your mapping table must be pre-configured statically as other rules in MAP aggregated mode, which means that with the 1.1.1.0/24 for address sharing available with 256 ports per user, the BR can just support exactly 64K CEs at most. However, as the lwAFTR allocates IPv4 addresses and ports dynamically, with these resources the lwAFTR can keep 64K lwB4s connected simultaneously, and nobody knows how large the number of lwB4s that the lwAFTR can support at most can be. Please note that this number could be much larger than 64K, because not all the supported lwB4s may be online at the same time. IMHO that the MAP mapping table can just be configured statically seems to be a limit when it comes to 1:1 scenario. Best regards! Yuchi Chen From: Ole Trøan Date: 2012-11-14 02:35 To: chenycmx CC: Satoru Matsushima; softwires WG Subject: Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E 1:1 for HA Yuchi, > I'm not so sure what you want to point out with the example. Of course I can > show an example of binding table on the AFTR, but I wonder why and what can > be achieved to do that here. The quote you made is just trying to figure out > that the notion of 'mapping' in MAP is different from 'binding' in > DS-Lite/Lw4over6 (it's not just a literal difference as I said). my point is that your LW46 mapping table will look exactly like the MAP 1:1 table. no? cheers, Ole > Date: 2012-11-13 21:46 > To: chenycmx > CC: Satoru Matsushima; softwires WG > Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E 1:1 for HA > > [Yuchi] Actually there is a 'binding' table on the AFTR, which maintains > > matching between v4 A+P and v6 A, and there's no 'mapping with address and > > port' in DS-Lite or Lw4over6 as in MAP. The main point here is not about > > the literal difference between 'binding' and 'mapping', but the difference > > between decoupling v4 & v6 and coupling v4 & v6. > > let us assume we have a 1.1.1.0/24 for address sharing available with 256 > ports per user. > > in MAP 1:1 you'd have: > 1.1.1.1:01/40 -> 2001:db8::1 > 1.1.1.1:02/40 -> 2001:db8::2 > 1.1.1.1:03/40 -> 2001:db8::3 > . > . > . > > 64K rules. > > in MAP aggregated mode you have: > 1.1.1.0/24 -> 2001:db8:XXXX::/48 > > can you please show how the LW46 rules / binding /mapping whatever you call > them look like for 1:1 mode? > > cheers, > Ole >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
