Hi, Ian,
The 1:1 mode is a natural characteristic of MAP and removing it from the
draft will cause more confusion. Please also see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-softwire-map-testing/
which shows that a MAP CPE can naturally support 1:1 mode.
Regards,
xing
[email protected] 写道:
Hi Ole,
Assuming that the Unified CPE draft gets adopted by the workgroup, then
there needs to be alignment of the different drafts reflecting this.
The unified CPE draft describes how a CPE interprets the presence (or lack
of) configuration parameters to understand which softwire mode to
configure. If a MAP CE implemented this (to be a 'unified MAP CE'), then
it would have two ways of configuring 1:1 mode - via the presence of the
tunnel endpoint address, an IPv4 address (and optionally a restricted port
range) and also through a BMR with EA=0.
Two ways of configuring the same function doesn't seem like a good idea,
even if the underlying mechanism that this function is implemented with is
different.
So, what I would propose is that EA=0 for MAP is not included as a
provisioning option in the MAP draft. If the parameters described in the
unified CPE draft required for 1:1 mode are configured on the unified MAP
CE, then it should interpret these to mean EA=0 and configure itself
accordingly.
I also think that it would be cleaner if this 1:1 functionality was
described in a separate document to the current MAP draft. As the 1:1 mode
functionality of MAP is a big architectural change to the mesh mode
function, it really needs a lot more than 2 paragraphs in order to
describe what it is and how it is used.
Best regards,
Ian
On 14/02/2013 11:14, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote:
#25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?
OK, so here is a task for whomever thinks MAP 1:1 mode should be removed.
- what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"?
- please suggest text changes to the mechanism that removes 1:1 mode.
given that my opinion is that 1:1 mode is an unremovable part of MAP, the
question just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't want this issue to be an excuse to block a last call, can we
quickly resolve this, and can we agree to drop it if there are no
significant contributions within the next week?
cheers,
Ole
The WG discussed several times this point (refer to the mailing list
archives).
MAP1:1 mode is a particular mode which may re-use some of the
provisioning
methods defined for MAP.
MAP1:1 vs. Lw4o6:
* MAP1:1 is not fully stateless.
* Lw4o6 is a standalone specification which provides the same service as
MAP1:1.
--
-------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
--
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire-
[email protected] | [email protected]
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: map-e | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/25>
softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
