I know that my own feeling is that MAP-E as currently described has a
split personality. On the one hand, there are those algorithms in
support of address sharing. On the other hand, there is provision for
doing without the algorithms (especially when o=0), in which case
ordinary provisioning processes would be sufficient.
I think we can all agree that during IPv6 transition operators need both
address sharing and the ability to provide full IPv4 addresses. The
question is whether it is necessary to combine both in this
specification. The one justification I could see would be to provide the
associated forwarding rules to CEs with shared addresses in the full
mesh case. Is there another justification?
Tom
On 13/02/2013 4:48 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
Before initiating a WGLC for this document, I guess there is a pending
discussion point: what to do with MAP1:1 mode.
Can you open an issue in the tracker for this please. We can try to
discuss this on the list to converge on a decision, failing which we can
take it up during the meeting.
in the context of the MAP-E draft I have to admit that I don't understand what
the issue is, nor what there is to discuss.
could someone fill me in?
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
