Hi Ole,
IMHO doing LPM with the lwAFTR's address is more straightforward than with a
"Domain v6 prefix".
In addition, I don't see why Ian's proposal cannot cover the case you
mentioned, the case in which an address out of the prefix domain can be chosen
as the tunnel endpoint address. If lwB4 has been provisioned with such an
address, and if this address does have a LPM with lwAFTR's address, lwB4 can
still use it as the tunnel endpoint address. Please correct me if I'm missing
anything.
Regards,
--------------
Yuchi
On 2014-03-06, 01:51, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ian,
>
>>>> No. As long as you know what particular mechanism you B4 vendor has
>>>> implemented, you can provision accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> The lwAFTR never has to do the LPM. It�s just got a tunnel endpoint
>>>> address configured by the operator.
>>>
>>> I'm not comfortable with that.
>>
>> [ian] Why aren�t you comfortable with it?
>
>I thought that was obvious.
>- it reinvents the wheel
>- and it reinvents a wheel that is less round than the one already invented.
>
>is there any reason why you cannot use the existing wheel?
>or feel free to invent a better one, and we can adopt that for MAP.
>
>cheers,
>Ole
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> is there any reason why you couldn't do it as MAP does?
>>>
>>> - include a "Domain IPv6 prefix" in the set of provisioning parameters.
>>> - the client does a longest match between the Domain IPv6 prefix and the
>>> End-user IPv6 prefixes
>>> and uses that to create the tunnel end point address.
>>>
>>> that also allows the operator to use either the WAN side /64 or an address
>>> out of the PD as the tunnel endpoint address.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Ole
>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
