[ian] So if you are optimising the amount of state, then you are doing this at the expense of reduced flexibility in v4/v6 address mapping. In the interest of balance, it would be fair to point this out.
Cheers, Ian On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:22, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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] 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] > solution. > > > > Cheers, > Wojciech. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
