Hi Mohamed, Thank you for your response.
On Tue 12 Jul 2016 13:46, <[email protected]> writes: > [Med] Actually, the data model allows to map a B4 to one or multiple > softwires. > > The rationale for using binding-ipv6info as an index is to ease > enforcing per-subscriber policies (e.g., limit the number of softwires > per B4). I am new to YANG; apologies in advance for making all of the beginner mistakes. My understanding of the specification list binding-entry { key "binding-ipv6info"; description "binding entry"; uses binding-entry; } was that "binding-ipv6info" uniquely identifies the B4 (because it's a key within the binding-entry list). Is that not the case? If it is the case, how is it possible for one B4 to have multiple softwires? >> It seems to me that one CPE could very well have multiple slices of >> IPv4 addresses. > > [Med] That's possible with the current data model: distinct binding > entries that belong to the same B4 may have distinct IPv4 > addresses. Whether the same or distinct IPv4 addresses are bound to the > same B4 is deployment-specific. IMHO, this should be considered with > caution as it may lead to some applications failures e.g., RTP using > IPv4@1 while companion RTCP flows are bound to another IPv4@2. Indeed. Happily for me though this complexity is on the B4 side of things ;-) By the time it gets to the AFTR I don't have any sort of policy decisions to make there. It is a very pleasant standard in that regard :) Regards, Andy _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
