On 06/03/2014 8:10 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
Yuchi,
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.
there are two issues here.
1) in the unified CPE context. is there a benefit in having the same algorithm
to choose the CE tunnel endpoint address?
are the requirements different?
2) pick the right mechanism for tunnel end point determination. in your above
scheme you do not have the same flexibility as you have with a provisioned
prefix selector
I though we had covered one in previous discussions, but there might be
something I've missed.
are we in agreement on this point? that it is beneficial to use the same
mechanism for tunnel endpoint address determination on the CE.
cheers,
Ole
I'm a bit surprised to still see the expression "Unified CPE". I thought
we had determined during DHCP discussions that MAP-E and LW4o6 are too
different to unify very much.
Tom Taylor
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
