Oops. Got mixed up between the Rule IPv6 prefix and the end-user IPv6
prefix.
On 27/01/2013 10:13 AM, Tom Taylor wrote:
Section 5.2 talks about BMRs being shared amongst CEs. This is only
possible with certain restrictions, which should perhaps be enumerated.
Fundamentally, anything unique to a specific CE MUST be provisioned
separately instead of being part of the BMR. Hence:
- In the case of a shared IPv4 address, the PSID MUST be provisioned by
other means.
- In the case of an IPv4 prefix or full IPv4 address, one could
theoretically share BMRs, but the CEs concerned would have distinct IPv4
prefixes which MUST be provisioned by other means, combined with
suffixes (in the EA bits) which are common to the sharing CEs. This
seems like a peculiar thing to do in practice. It would be simpler just
to say that if BMRs relating to IPv4 prefixes or full IPv4 addresses are
shared, the EA bits MUST be absent (o = 0). Even simpler: forbid sharing
of BMRs for IPv4 prefixes or full IPv4 addresses.
BTW: potential global change: instead of "full address", how about
"unrestricted address"?
Tom Taylor
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
