Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

It done by having 1 rule for N CEs, i.e. route aggregation vs host routes


On 3 March 2014 15:19, Lee, Yiu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sorry for my ignorance. How MAP-E optimizes states In hub-and-spoke mode
> compared to lw4o6?
>
> From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 1:47 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>
> Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> following up with some proposed text re relation to MAP
>
>
>> On 26 February 2014 10:31, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Woj,
>>>
>>> I've been out of the office for a couple of days, so sorry for the be
>>> late reply.
>>>
>>> Please see inline.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2014 09:34
>>> To: Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
>>>
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>> Just to be clear: I'm ok with lw46 defining a specific functional mode
>>> as I believe it does in this draft, also leaving "as-is" the DHCP part of
>>> it (i.e. it's a capability that can be signalled using the lw46 container,
>>> etc).
>>>
>>> [ian] It would help if you could propose text for what you would like to
>>> see. The inline discussion has become quite protracted.
>>>
>>
>> I'll follow up on that...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
> Here I'm pointing out that IPinIP dataplane + ICMP wise there should be no
> difference between lw46 and MAP-E, and in effect a single BR or lw46 AFTR
> implementation can be made of these.
>
> Current text in Section 1 reads:
>
> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
>    architecture only.  It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4
>    connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR.
>    If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required,
>    [I-D.ietf-softwire-map <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>] provides a suitable solution.
>
>
> Propose changing the above to:
>
> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire architecture only,
> where the AFTR maintains (softwire) state for each subscriber. A means for
> optmizing the amount of such state, as well as the option of meshed IPv4
>
> connectivity between subscribers, are features of the [I-D.ietf-softwire-map <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>] solution.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wojciech.
>
>
>
>