In my view, the MAP-E text, which should be followed by other MAP related document.
cheers, --satoru On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Poscic, Kristian (Kristian) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
