Hi Linhui, I agree with your comments on 1,3 and 5. Comments on 2&4 below.
Thanks, Ian > > 2) The BR module should also augments ietf-interfaces since they are also a > tunnel endpoint and it is better to be consistent with the CE model. And in > this way, we do not need to declare the redundant br-instance id or name > anymore. [if - From my personal perspective, I disagree. In both of the lw4o6 implementations I’ve worked with, the v6 address used as the BR’s tunnel endpoint address is not configured on any interface - i.e. it is used purely as a destination address for routing traffic to, validating received encapsulated traffic’s source address and as the source address for sent encapsulation. If an implementation did rely on having an address assigned to an interface, then this could still be done using ietf-interfaces/ietf-ip in the normal way and the softwire-br model would be configured with the appropriate matching address. > > 4) The usage of choice statement is not very clear, why do we need to use the > 'case' and 'feature' statements together? It seems that we only need one of > them. [if - Well, a CE may implement binding and/or algorithm. If it implements one, then there is no choice to be made. If it implements both, then it can only configure one type hence the choice. If it needed to implement two types for whatever reason, then there would be two instances of the model attached to different interfaces. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
