IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B589621F8754 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.743
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-JFVfPoR-xA for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C95821F8752 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so2031825iec.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mwPndqOO0xZdG57SuKPPEJgl5lheoomQy0AQMO4gc0o=; b=Arb/QN7CAMqt0qcApDGaAsJ52/FH46LxTn2bK4T5ynjBqoAOSrZuqZlkPgYvuMb9Gh +9vuQaw5hE0cpuZ+EnZLMwzcIgGSIpcGlorlWWtU/fIwWj+0naQrHkO+OQAF41BprOEE 5M84M+hDAceqAJnXV26m8mB0GNuP8eYvyBGWaJSUG4wT6ps/dSsGODTkrPnUMEgYSWHS HayWxBDsUERLZQzwP0XJv7WGcUpuxU13zC93Dm3HxbCFd0y02T4gYK/mADWB8rggMFrh 6OM1RWd9utwvQEL718UBkcfQFdLNSllOFga+oZ3ENwEsrPbeh0sgHqZGF6FD5Dx8Ohc+ C88w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.5.239 with SMTP id v15mr3265149igv.41.1348070714664; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58C07AFE-11C9-4298-8EC2-622F0E3482BA@gmail.com>
References: <CAC8QAcc21HL_YUB98=n+M_BVmhJb3hqDKhsAPTOD52L1LiCmqA@mail.gmail.com> <01874DCB-11A0-42E2-91BD-FF16B03985AF@employees.org> <CAC8QAcf64_mAOZUNo2b2N_N_H+jJcTRhE++vYh6EHb+ogLLPqw@mail.gmail.com> <58C07AFE-11C9-4298-8EC2-622F0E3482BA@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:05:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcd-fFJ8-EM9cJkAzFuto=cXRTVX10voKUquYdbRpy8nrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:16 -0000

HI Satoru,

I am saying that hub & spoke model is quite simple in case of MAP-E.
In the draft, draft-ietf-softwire-map-02, as you have done it in
draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, specify hub&spoke case first.

I know that mesh model is important for MAP-E as BR may be deployed
deep in the network. You are explaining in detail in Section 5. I
suggest adding one clarifying statement saying that it applies to the
mesh model.

As for the details of encapsulation in reference to
draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, I suggest that you

either make draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00 a normative
reference and make it up to date, or

add some details to draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 on how the
encapsulation in MAP-E works in reference to RFC 2473.

As for the source address of IPv6 packets sent by BR, I suggest
removing the requirement to make it an anycast address. I read in a
vendor web site (Cisco) it is stated that anycast addresses must not
be used as source addresses. RFC 4291 does not require this though.

The reason? As I explained, at times MAP-E is stateful, how would CE
find the right BR if it does not know BR's unicast address?

I hope the above is clear. I am removing the conversation we had
before, but I am curious, what is MRT? I could not find it anywhere?



> It looks that there're two cases for hub-and-spoke mode. One is that a CE forwards packets with MRT as same as mesh mode, but it has only DMR. The other is that a CE forwards all packets with following DMR even it has several FMRs. Do we need to distinguish each of them? then write up both cases for hub-and-spoke?
>

Regards,

Behcet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email