> 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?
MAP-E is a generic tool. how an operator choose to use mapping rules is a deployment choice. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
