I'm a bit late on this, but it comes from trying to sort out what the
underlying information will look like as Diameter AVPs coming from AAA.
This is just a question for clarification.
As indicated in Section 5, bullet 1 of the MAP-E document, a MAP CE can
be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes, each associated
with its own Basic Mapping Rule.
If I read things correctly in section 5.1 of
draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt, there are two cases:
(1) Multiple domains: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE will
be present.
(2) Single domain, multiple subnets: multiple instances of
OPTION_S46_RULE will be present within a single instance of
OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE.
In either case, the correlation between the End-user IPv6 prefix and its
corresponding Basic Mapping Rule is achieved through longest match. A
good CPE implementation will validate that there is a 1-1 correspondence
between the BMRs and the provisioned End-user IPv6 prefixes.
Is my understanding correct?
Tom Taylor
On 07/04/2014 12:37 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi all,
This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on
advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of
Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients as a Standards Track RFC. The
authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised on
the document. The latest version of the draft is available at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07
Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing
this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial
suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. This last call will
conclude on April 21 2014.
Regards,
Suresh & Yong
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
