Re: [Softwires] MAP-E question -- provisioning of Rule IPv4 prefix

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 09 April 2013 10:53 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <51633F76.8080405@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:52:56 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AE32C8A2-3EAF-4079-8F49-BFA2C8CB7347@employees.org>
References: <51633F76.8080405@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E question -- provisioning of Rule IPv4 prefix
Precedence: list

Tom,

> In the previous note, I meant the BMR used as FMR, to be technical. But here's another point from the same section:
> 
>   The length of r MAY be zero, in which case the complete IPv4 address
>   or prefix is encoded in the EA bits.  If only a part of the IPv4
>   address/prefix is encoded in the EA bits, the Rule IPv4 prefix is
>   provisioned to the CE by other means (e.g.  a DHCPv6 option).
> 
> Question: does that second sentence also assume r = 0? If so, I think you've moved beyond what makes sense to document as part of MAP-E. Given that you have the MAP-E BMR mechanism, why wouldn't you use it?

no, the second sentence assumes r > 0. "If only a part of the IPv4 address is encoded...", implies that
the other part comes via the BMR.

cheers,
Ole

[Softwires] MAP-E question -- provisioning of Rul… Tom Taylor
Re: [Softwires] MAP-E question -- provisioning of… Ole Troan
Re: [Softwires] MAP-E question -- provisioning of… Tom Taylor