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

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Ian,

> Thanks for incorporating  my comments into this version.
> 
> Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to clarify: Is the BMR still being proposed as the method for configuring all IPv4 information, even with the EA=0 case? Section 5.2 states:
> 
> A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is embedded in the address.

yes. that's is the meaning of EA=0.

> Which is OK, if a little ambiguous.

how so?

> Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 IPv4 prefix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the Unified CPE terminology.
> 
> I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in softwire-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision the Binding Mode.

the MAP BMR isn't only a 'provisioning construct' it is also used for forwarding.
the MAP document doesn't say anything about how the BMR is provisioned.

if you created a separate DHCP option for the corner case of EA=0, how should a Rule IPv4 prefix length of 32 with EA=0, be handled?
seems like we then create more ambiguity...

cheers,
Ole