Ian, > Thanks for incorporating my comments into this version. > > Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to clarify: Is > the BMR still being proposed as the method for configuring all IPv4 > information, even with the EA=0 case? Section 5.2 states: > > A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is embedded in > the address.
yes. that's is the meaning of EA=0. > Which is OK, if a little ambiguous. how so? > Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 IPv4 > prefix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the Unified CPE > terminology. > > I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in > softwire-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision the > Binding Mode. the MAP BMR isn't only a 'provisioning construct' it is also used for forwarding. the MAP document doesn't say anything about how the BMR is provisioned. if you created a separate DHCP option for the corner case of EA=0, how should a Rule IPv4 prefix length of 32 with EA=0, be handled? seems like we then create more ambiguity... cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
