On 3 March 2014 15:20, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > It done by having 1 rule for N CEs, i.e. route aggregation vs host routes >
Oh, and it still stays hub & spoke, unless the CE is also set-up for mesh mode. > > > On 3 March 2014 15:19, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry for my ignorance. How MAP-E optimizes states In hub-and-spoke mode >> compared to lw4o6? >> >> From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> >> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 1:47 PM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: Softwires-wg <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> following up with some proposed text re relation to MAP >> >> >>> On 26 February 2014 10:31, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Woj, >>>> >>>> I've been out of the office for a couple of days, so sorry for the be >>>> late reply. >>>> >>>> Please see inline. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2014 09:34 >>>> To: Ian Farrer <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Softwires-wg <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: >>>> draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> Just to be clear: I'm ok with lw46 defining a specific functional mode >>>> as I believe it does in this draft, also leaving "as-is" the DHCP part of >>>> it (i.e. it's a capability that can be signalled using the lw46 container, >>>> etc). >>>> >>>> [ian] It would help if you could propose text for what you would like >>>> to see. The inline discussion has become quite protracted. >>>> >>> >>> I'll follow up on that... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >> Here I'm pointing out that IPinIP dataplane + ICMP wise there should be >> no difference between lw46 and MAP-E, and in effect a single BR or lw46 >> AFTR implementation can be made of these. >> >> Current text in Section 1 reads: >> >> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire >> architecture only. It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4 >> connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR. >> If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required, >> [I-D.ietf-softwire-map >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>] >> provides a suitable solution. >> >> >> Propose changing the above to: >> >> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire >> architecture only, >> where the AFTR maintains (softwire) state for each subscriber. A means for >> >> optmizing the amount of such state, as well as the option of meshed IPv4 >> >> connectivity between subscribers, are features of the [I-D.ietf-softwire-map >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>] >> solution. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Wojciech. >> >> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
