Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8971A03FA for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRuJZFmZzwN5 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3FB1A043D for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id at1so1999873iec.27 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tPtqwxCSi3uTnu929ycxElAZyvRMDfqJqo8doky29Vw=; b=0+DZsenqlFdUmU4kwfr1QICQE279AtUWUMEXVfKlchlyj04xWnKZoBK5lVb3UGTPMF WIQebFhnEfmWTE1ytliK4XIUm7lIzYb1bDDWMpFT6/u3EzA/M90jSz3WyrdETpSZnNpK Ui58tUxWjUSDgWUqj0QQdShhCzPLNDPrclW9YSvDP2tvELYDR2fdZjHMxXW+F8V1/bKG mV9uE1UucoYrT7okEhcV4qCEiEUbUOGEOGxRlA1Q+C7Lly1t/8douvhBxzKWlaBVcAbh 8FZqOA1dWvsKCn4hF3zUyzksG/mj7r6KVA8Y/tPT2k8kQqaoMPG99GCKGsLN7IQ6pZbW Cxmg==
X-Received: by 10.43.148.66 with SMTP id kf2mr4668577icc.30.1398391359381; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (dsl-173-206-0-110.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.0.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm4038995igr.14.2014.04.24.19.02.38 for <softwires@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5359C237.2030007@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:02:31 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: softwires@ietf.org
References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/JrK8WUWyMsAe5vvKfeO5r7U1vfc
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:02:55 -0000

I'm a bit late on this, but it comes from trying to sort out what the 
underlying information will look like as Diameter AVPs coming from AAA. 
This is just a question for clarification.

As indicated in Section 5, bullet 1 of the MAP-E document, a MAP CE can 
be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes, each associated 
with its own Basic Mapping Rule.

If I read things correctly in section 5.1 of 
draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt, there are two cases:
  (1) Multiple domains: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE will 
be present.

  (2) Single domain, multiple subnets: multiple instances of 
OPTION_S46_RULE will be present within a single instance of 
OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE.

In either case, the correlation between the End-user IPv6 prefix and its 
corresponding Basic Mapping Rule is achieved through longest match. A 
good CPE implementation will validate that there is a 1-1 correspondence 
between the BMRs and the provisioned End-user IPv6 prefixes.

Is my understanding correct?

Tom Taylor

On 07/04/2014 12:37 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi all,
>    This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on
> advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of
> Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients as a Standards Track RFC. The
> authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised on
> the document. The latest version of the draft is available at
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07
>
> Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing
> this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial
> suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. This last call will
> conclude on April 21 2014.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh & Yong
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>