Hi Ole, I agree that we should choose the better algorithm. Provisioning a prefix seems can introduce more flexibility.
I don't agree that we should try to unify lwB4 and MAP-E CE. Regards, -------------- Yuchi On 2014-03-06, 21:10, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> 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 > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
