Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Hub-and-spoke in MAP

Wojciech,

This isn't answers to questions I asked.
They remain open.

RD

Le 2012-04-10 à 11:51, Wojciech Dec a écrit :

> Remi,
> 
> you're apparently confusing matters. There is no need to have a DHCPv6 option, or a million node deployment to test MAP implementations. DS-lite is a good example, with implementations and standards track before the DHCPv6 option.
> 
> Needless to say, if you're implying that tests of MAP without testing the standards based DHCPv6 option are insufficient, then any test of 4rd-u or anything for that matter without using the fully standards DHCP option would be equally flawed. 
> At the very least however, MAP does not need to prove on thing: Compatibility with IPv6, which 4rd-u would need to.
> 
> -Woj.
> 
> On 10 April 2012 11:37, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
> Hello, all,
> 
> We have heard many times that MAP is completely specified, and has been extensively tested.
> Yet:
> - mapping rules of tested configurations have not been provided
> - several missing points of the MAP-T+E specification have been identified (ref (*) www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04049.html)
> 
> This mail is just about ONE of these, the hub-and-spoke issue.
> It has been discussed several times but AFAIK still without a complete answer.
> 
> The difficulty is that:
> - The MAP-DHCPv6 draft has no parameter to indicate whether the ISP-chosen topology is mesh or hub-and-spoke.
> - According to the MAP-address-and-port draft, "each MAP node in the domain has the same set of rules".
> - As answered in the mail below, the choice "needs to be provisioned. either explicitly or implicitly (via the rules)".
> 
> Questions I have are then:
> - Is the choice provisioned explicitly, implicitly, or possibly both?
> - How?
> - Which tests have confirmed that it worked?
> 
> Answer by any one who asserts he or she understands how MAP works will be welcome.
> 
> Thanks,
> RD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > De : Ole Trøan <ot@cisco.com>
> > Date : 2012-03-14 14:29
> > À : Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
> > Cc : Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
> > Objet : Rép : [Softwires] Question about hub-and-spoke operation in MAP
> >
> > Remi,
> >
> >> I couldn't figure out by how CEs can be required to work hub-and-spoke without some DHCPv6 indication:
> >> - If two CEs apply the same BMR to their delegated IPv6 prefixes, how do they know whether their ISP expects direct paths between them (mesh) or BR hairpinning (hub-and-spoke)?
> >>
> >
> > that's correct it needs to be provisioned. either explicitly or implicitly (via the rules).
> >
> > cheers,
> > Ole
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 

Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Hub-and-spoke in MAP - How?