Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG

[Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peng,

On 2012/06/25, at 18:34, Peng Wu wrote:

>> Let's think that a CE provisioned with following BMR comes from MAP DHCPv6 options.
>> 
>> BMR:
>>  o Rule-ipv6-prefix  : {exact matched with CE's delegated prefix}
>>  o Rule-ipv4-prefix  : x.x.x.x/32
>>  o EA-length         : 0
>>  o Port-param option : {PSID/length}
>> 
>> This BMR could be a LW46 provisioning means.
> 
> Again, all the information needed is the IPv4 address and port set.
> 
> 1) The item like rule-ipv6-prefix is not needed at all.
> 2) Port set or PSID still needs extra provisioning (while in regular
> MAP it's embedded in IPv6 address)
> 
> So why make it so difficult and obscure

Not difficult, easy business for CE which implemented MAP. Other difficulty in operator side in particular provisioning complex, that should be same with LW46. It also makes to complete MAP spec in the ea-len zero case.

cheers,
--satoru