Hi Ole,
>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? [ian] The description says what it doesn't do without saying what it does do. That's why I would say it's ambiguous. > >> 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... [ian] As I proposed in Orlando (second to last slide): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-softwire-3.pdf No objections were raised to this. > >cheers, >Ole > Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
