Thank you Ole. I was hoping my interpretation was correct as it allows for the provisioning strategies I've been considering.
Sincerely, Jordan ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:20 PM To: Gottlieb, Jordan J Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Softwires] Multiple MAP E/T Mapping Rules per Domain Jordan, > I’m looking to get clarification on a couple of items as they relate to > mapping rules. Could not find any threads on the softwires WG mailing list > archive. > > Section 3 of RFC7597 defines a map rule as “A set of parameters describing > the mapping between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address, or shared IPv4 address and > an IPv6 prefix or address. Each domain uses a different mapping rule set.” > Section 7.2 goes on to state that “The MAP BR MUST be configured with > corresponding mapping rules for each MAP domain for which it is acting as a > BR.” That being said, a MAP domain definition on a BR should be able to > support multiple mapping rules. Is this interpretation correct? I want to > make sure that “Each domain uses a different mapping rule set” defines a list > of MAP rules and not the parameters that make up the rule. yes. > Building on the assertion above…What is the expected behavior for a MAP CE > when it is RFC7598 DHCPv6 provisioned with multiple Rule Options (single > container/domain), F-flag not set on any rule, and a single End-user IPv6 > prefix? Is it acceptable for a MAP CE implementation to derive the BMR by > matching the End-user IPv6 prefix to the appropriate mapping rule (as > explicitly defined) while ignoring the non-matching rules given the F-flag > value 0? yes. if the F-flag was set, you'd end with multiple A+P routes for forwarding, but would only generate an IPv4 address from the End-user IPv6 prefix that matched. Best regards, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
