hi,
as agreed in the meeting here is the summary of the discussion of the MAP open
issues.
the plan is to leave these open for discussion for a week (until next Monday),
then issue revision -05, that we will ask to be last called in the WG.
#18 Title and file name of the MAP-E draft need to be updated
No-one in the room objected to keeping name as is.
Close ticket.
#19 IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs map-e
No one in the room objected to keeping interface-id as is in revision
04.
Close ticket.
#21 Fragmentation must not be handled according to RFC 2473 map-e
It is an issue, but it is a generic problem that should be fixed in a
RFC2473bis.
Have descriptive text in the MAP document describing the issue and
referencing RFC4459.
Current proposed text:
"Multiple BRs using the same anycast source address could send
fragmented packets to the same CE at the same time. If the
fragmented packets from different BRs happen to use the same fragment
ID, incorrect reassembly might occur. See [RFC4459] for an analysis
of the problem. Section 3.4 suggests solving the problem by
fragmenting the inner packet."
Close ticket with above text.
Chairs to consider RFC2473bis
#25 Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?
Remove section 7.4 (Address Independence). Rename 1:1 example.
- Offset 4 versus 6.
Discussion on value of wasting 3000 port versus simplicity of nibble
alignment.
No objection to moving default offset to 6 (from 4 in revision 04)
- Updated text for appendix B
Tom Taylor to propose updates to appendix B (GMA appendix).
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
