1) The MAP domain definition should be consolidated across the three
drafts (map-e, map-t and map-deployment).
For example the map-e draft defines under the terminology section the MAP
domain as:
MAP domain: One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected to the
same virtual link. A service provider may
deploy a single MAP domain, or may utilize
multiple MAP domains.
Map-t draft defines is as (under terminology section):
MAP domain: One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected to the
same IPv6 network. A service provider may
deploy a single MAP domain, or may utilize
multiple MAP domains.
While map-deployment draft (sec 4.2 Building the Map Domain) says:
One MAP domain shares a common BR and has the same set of
BMRs, FMRs and DMR, and it can be further divided into multiple sub-
domains when multiple IPv4 subnets are deployed in one MAP domain.
So we go from virtual link and the 'same IPv6 network' concept with multiple
BRs per MAP domain (in map-e/t drafts) to a common BR per map domain and
subdomains concepts in map-deployment draft.
What does 'same IPv6 network' mean in the map-t draft? In other words does
this mean that multiple MAP domains cannot co-exists within the boundary of an
IPv6 network and that an operator should construct a separate IPv6 network for
another MAP domain? I don't think this is what 'same IPv6 network' means but it
may come out as such.
Then the map-deployment draft says that the MAP domain should share common BR -
which I don't think is correct (for redundancy and load sharing purposes).
And then the subdomains that are referred to in the map-deployment draft, they
correspond simply to BMRs. But if this is so, then we should define subdomain
as such (subdomain = BMR). Or keep referring to BMRs instead of subdomains.
Rather than trying to answer the question' what is the MAP domain?' I'm trying
to ask myself 'what do I need in order to create multiple MAP domains?' I think
the answer is that I need multiple (sets) of BRs (and corresponding CEs) on the
same IPv6 or different IPv6 network, each such set of BRs must contain
distinct BMR and FMR rules (i.e. no overlapping of BMR/FMR rules between the
sets of BRs to which MAP domains are tied to).
2) Mesh topology is implicitly enabled in cases where FMRs are provisioned
(configured). But the mesh topology can be also explicitly configured in case
that we have only BMR. Map-dhcp draft talks about this. Section 4.3 says this:
o F-Flag: 1 bit field that specifies whether the rule is to be used
for forwarding (FMR). 0x0 = This rule is NOT used as a FMR. 0x1 =
This rule is also a FMR.
Maybe I missed this, but I think that map-e/t drafts do not talk about this
very much. Shouldn't this be specified as part of the optional MAP rule. We
talk about the first 4bits (by default) of the port range being set to 0 (to
exclude ports 0 - 4K-1) but we do not talk about this mesh bit in map-e/t
Thanks,
Kris
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
