Hi Jon,
Apologies for the delay in answering. Swapped out all my knowledge of MAP to
disk. ;-)
> We are working on some MAP-E and MAP-T testing, and we have
> a few questions. Some of the existing VPP documentation about
> MAP-E and MAP-T is a bit loose.
>
> Should the use of a pre-resolved forwarding address be applicable
> to both MAP-E and MAP-T? Or is that only a MAP-E thing? Specifically,
> we see in the test/test_map.py test that it is only tested in the MAP-E case.
> Is it missing from the MAP-T tests due to oversight, or is that technically
> correct?
-E and -T has evolved a little differently, which accounts for the differences.
Pre-resolved next-hops is applicable for both. Should we do a shared todo list
for MAP items?
Perhaps an epic JIRA?
> The MAP-T test also "enables map" on both interfaces in that same file.
> Is it required to do so? For only MAP-T?
I would think so. Isn’t one the IPv4 side and the other interface the IPv6 side?
In both cases packets are picked out from the IP feature path.
> Finally, there is no test that introduces a rule. I feel like I read
> somewhere
> that MAP-T required at least one rule? Or is some combination of PSID
> and EA bits sufficient alone?
Rules was developed for the LW46 1:1 case. As per subscriber rules as opposed
to algorithmic mapping for many users within a domain.
I think rules can be useful also in a MAP-T case. We should homogenize that.
Patches welcome!
Best regards,
Ole
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#12793): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/12793
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/31018611/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
