Le 2012-11-29 11:16, [email protected] a écrit :
As agreed in Atlanta, we prepared an I-D describing a proposed approach for the
unified CPE.
We hope this version is a good starting point to have fruitful discussion.
Your comments, suggestions and contributions are more than welcome.
Here are some:
- First, I think this is very positive. I like what I'm reading.
- Didn't we also consider public 4o6 as one mode? Any reason why it was
left out?
- Is public 4o6 the "minor change to lw4o6" that section 4.1 hints at?
- In section "3.2. Required Provisoning Information", I believe it would
be possible and beneficial to specify only what each mode requires *in
addition* to what the previous mode already provides. e.g.
- DS-Lite requires the remote tunnel endpoint address.
- In addition to that, lw4o6 requires the CPE's IPv4 address and port
set.
- In addition to that, MAP requires mesh routes.
So each mode's provisioning parameters would be a superset of the
previous one. (DS-Lite < lw4o6 < MAP)
One we have this kind of hierarchical provisioning, we can define CPE
behaviour in the same way. For example, MAP behaviour would be:
1. Do exactly what a lw4o6 CPE does.
2. In addition to 1, also send and receive packets directly to and from
other CPEs according to the provisioned mesh routes.
(I will refrain from commenting on section 4.4 until we have the
higher-level design figured out.)
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
