Agreed with your statements. When I wrote the previous email, I looked at it from the 4o6 angle. I was questioning how was MAP-E more optimized in the 4o6 mode. I over-generalized hub-and-spoke in my question. My bad.
From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires-wg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt On 3 March 2014 17:57, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > How MAP-E aggregates CPE for N CEs in hub-and-spoke? When implementing MAP in > hub-and-spoke, cpe/ce v4 information is in the br. Each ce will have an entry > in the br. This is the same number of states lw4o6 will maintain. Am I missing > something? I support to keep the original text in the draft. You appear to be confusing the relation between hub&spoke and number of BR rules. In MAP optimized + hub&spoke mode the following applies: - Each CE has just 1 DMR (aka default rule, aka default route). Mesh mode is not active in this case - Each BR has just 1 forwarding rule for the N CE's that are part of its domain. That changes to N rules in the 1:1 case.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
