Great. That works for me. Cheers, Ian
On 11/04/2013 09:46, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: >Ian, > >> I think that the change that you've proposed would help. But actually >>the >> worst offender is in section 5: >> >> Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the >> Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route to the MAP BR. >> >> >> What about if this read?: >> >> Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the >> Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route via a tunnel to the >>MAP >> BR. > > >that's not quite correct if we model the MAP domain as an NBMA link which >all MAP nodes >are connected to. what about adding similar text to what is in 6rd? > >" > When 6rd is enabled, a typical CE router will install a default route > to the BR, a black hole route for the 6rd delegated prefix, and > routes for any LAN side assigned and advertised prefixes. For > example, using a CE IPv4 address of 10.100.100.1, a BR IPv4 address > of 10.0.0.1, an IPv4MaskLen of 8, 2001:db8::/32 as the 6rdPrefix, and > one /64 prefix assigned to a LAN side interface, a typical CE routing > table will look like: > > ::/0 -> 6rd-virtual-int0 via 2001:db8:0:100:: (default route) > 2001:db8::/32 -> 6rd-virtual-int0 (direct connect to 6rd) > 2001:db8:6464:100::/56 -> Null0 (delegated prefix null route) > 2001:db8:6464:100::/64 -> Ethernet0 (LAN interface) >" > >cheers, >Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
