I thought we had closed this optic after the extensive discussion on the mailing list few months back.
Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Ole Troan <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:17 PM To: Tom Taylor <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-04: BMR and forwarding rules >> 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
