Ian, > 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.
a MAP CE has only one way of configuring 1:1 mode. > 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. indeed. > 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. a MAP CE will always configure itself with the BMR. that consists of the Rule IPv6 prefix, the Rule IPv4 prefix and the EA length. from a MAP perspective there is not two ways of doing 1:1 mode. > 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. 1:1 is a configured tunnel with provisioning support. as others have said, that's a simple subset of the mesh functionality. hardly a big architectural change. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
