IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

"Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FAF1A04F6 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bBlXnpMAAdYV for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD321A0732 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([24.40.56.115]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.119753398; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:12:11 -0700
Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([169.254.7.116]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::492e:3fa1:c2ad:e04e%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:12:11 -0500
From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
To: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPOI2p6MVFSuL800+A+7mLaV4tIA==
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:14:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CF3CFC7E.3B93F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
References: <20140211075445.17615.61208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FD878467-904B-4441-95B4-11D4461A612E@employees.org> <CF237FDE.AACEB%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4jOBfvnqCV4UH8qt0HA5zZ-35f+q5ZepzjnwGX5_Oj9Gg@mail.gmail.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2CDB8ED2@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CAFFjW4iP2KqNJFtJPr5rp0tzRwM5TPjaqiSP5r13JqbX46ao7w@mail.gmail.com> <CD1D4FF6-9509-43B4-AFC4-4F1AF99D0C4D@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4ibkj_xpTuXrbYjxkdxD=+qNzapCGPHJwXsZ-k0ZvGg-g@mail.gmail.com> <CF335888.AE89D%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4hv5WBiqyw9jM+ZoLMGR5k49pjKXG0epnhrsOGoBBKMYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFFjW4gyvcBTBDjE8nzGbPz8BcHUasHizzzry0cRF+J2T82uSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF3A3F56.3B435%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <CAFFjW4j-R03WJdUe5Zb9Q2yuCMBtCOtO490NRjhaWMQ+d3a1xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF3A6203.3B49D%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <CAFFjW4h6Dr=-_om8RfK6aGstHO91ZVi3cxLigjDwtSj=eL3vEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFFjW4h6Dr=-_om8RfK6aGstHO91ZVi3cxLigjDwtSj=eL3vEA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [68.87.16.247]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3476880728_5278325"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/e4Djmd7B4nZx8_TRm31S8KuiGYw
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:12:51 -0000

Agreed with your statements. When I wrote the previous email, I looked at it
from the 4o6 angle.  I was questioning how was MAP-E more optimized in the
4o6 mode. I over-generalized hub-and-spoke in my question. My bad.

From:  Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
Date:  Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM
To:  "Yiu L. LEE" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Cc:  Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

On 3 March 2014 17:57, Lee, Yiu <Yiu_Lee@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> How MAP-E aggregates CPE for N CEs in hub-and-spoke? When implementing MAP in
> hub-and-spoke, cpe/ce v4 information is in the br. Each ce will have an entry
> in the br. This is the same number of states lw4o6 will maintain. Am I missing
> something? I support to keep the original text in the draft.

You appear to be confusing the relation between hub&spoke and number of BR
rules.
In MAP optimized + hub&spoke mode the following applies:
- Each CE has just 1 DMR (aka default rule, aka default route). Mesh mode is
not active in this case
- Each BR has just 1 forwarding rule for the N CE's that are part of its
domain. That changes to N rules in the 1:1 case.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email