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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ole,


>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?

[ian] The description says what it doesn't do without saying what it does
do. That's why I would say it's ambiguous.

>
>> 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...

[ian] As I proposed in Orlando (second to last slide):
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-softwire-3.pdf

No objections were raised to this.

>
>cheers,
>Ole
>

Cheers,
Ian