Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Ian,

> I think that the change that you've proposed would help. But actually the
> worst offender is in section 5:
> 
> Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the
> Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route to the MAP BR.
> 
> 
> What about if this read?:
> 
> Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the
> Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route via a tunnel to the MAP
> BR.


that's not quite correct if we model the MAP domain as an NBMA link which all MAP nodes
are connected to. what about adding similar text to what is in 6rd?

"
   When 6rd is enabled, a typical CE router will install a default route
   to the BR, a black hole route for the 6rd delegated prefix, and
   routes for any LAN side assigned and advertised prefixes.  For
   example, using a CE IPv4 address of 10.100.100.1, a BR IPv4 address
   of 10.0.0.1, an IPv4MaskLen of 8, 2001:db8::/32 as the 6rdPrefix, and
   one /64 prefix assigned to a LAN side interface, a typical CE routing
   table will look like:

     ::/0 -> 6rd-virtual-int0 via 2001:db8:0:100:: (default route)
     2001:db8::/32 -> 6rd-virtual-int0 (direct connect to 6rd)
     2001:db8:6464:100::/56 -> Null0 (delegated prefix null route)
     2001:db8:6464:100::/64 -> Ethernet0 (LAN interface)
"

cheers,
Ole