Hi Rajiv, With all due respect, I disagree the analogy. Comparing MAP-E to routing protocol is comparing apple to orange. MAP-E is not a routing protocol. MAP-E won't synchronize or exchange states between two BRs. Instead, MAP-E requires to statically provision states (aka rules) in the BR. Original MAP-E describes a mechanism to reduce user states in BR by using programatic logic. 1:1 MAP-E does not require any of the good stuff defined in MAP-E. I just found it odd to combine stateful and stateless mechanisms in a single draft and use a same name.
Thanks, Yiu On 11/12/12 2:51 PM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >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
