Re: [Softwires] MAP compatibility with DS-Lite

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

You're apparently missing some key points:

1.  It's a functional requirement of a CPE, specifying how the CPE behaves
with a case of NOT having an IPv4 address. What is the to be the bahviour
of a MAP CPE without one?
2.  This is NOT about configuring a ds-lite CPE

Throughout, its still not been answered what is the downside of having this
functionality of a *MAP CPE*?




On 23 November 2013 19:13, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > This is hardly a hack, it's a functional requirement of a CPE,
> specifying how the CPE behaves with a case of NOT having an IPv4 address =
> no NAT44, in this case. It's not about overflow.
> >
> > Besides that very obvious case to handle, I provided an explanation of
> the value the described behaviour brings, which has also been demonstrated
> (per Xing's mail). So far you have not substantiated what is the down-side
> of having this functionality on a MAP CPE, other than considering it not
> useful. Could you do that?
> >
> > Re: your substitution: No, an SP can hardly predict which CPEs in
> question need to have DS-Lite capabilities (as in support ds-lite options,
> et al)
>
> to take the overflow case, then you'd still need to provision this as two
> MAP domains.
> does it make much difference if you provision it as one MAP domain and one
> 6334 option?
>
> I'm in favour of having these mechanisms as ships in the night.
>
> given that we already have a way to provision DS-lite (6334), I wouldn't
> really be in favour of adding another one.
> I think CPE implementors have enough combinations already. ;-)
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>