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

["Lee, Yiu" <[e-mail]>]

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.


From:  Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>
Date:  Monday, March 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM
To:  "Yiu L. LEE" <[e-mail]>
Cc:  "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Softwires-wg
<[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

It done by having 1 rule for N CEs, i.e. route aggregation vs host routes


On 3 March 2014 15:19, Lee, Yiu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Sorry for my ignorance. How MAP-E optimizes states In hub-and-spoke mode
> compared to lw4o6?
> 
> From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 1:47 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> following up with some proposed text re relation to MAP
> 
>> 
>> On 26 February 2014 10:31, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi Woj,
>>> 
>>> I¹ve been out of the office for a couple of days, so sorry for the be late
>>> reply.
>>> 
>>> Please see inline.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ian
>>> 
>>> From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2014 09:34
>>> To: Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
>>> 
>>> Hi Ian,
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear: I'm ok with lw46 defining a specific functional mode as I
>>> believe it does in this draft, also leaving "as-is" the DHCP part of it
>>> (i.e. it's a capability that can be signalled using the lw46 container,
>>> etc). 
>>> 
>>> [ian] It would help if you could propose text for what you would like to
>>> see. The inline discussion has become quite protracted.
>> 
>> I'll follow up on that...
>>  
>>> 
> 
> Here I'm pointing out that IPinIP dataplane + ICMP wise there should be no
> difference between lw46 and MAP-E, and in effect a single BR or lw46 AFTR
> implementation can be made of these.
> 
> Current text in Section 1 reads:
> 
> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
>    architecture only.  It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4
>    connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR.
>    If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required,
>    [I-D.ietf-softwire-map
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softw
> ire-map> ] provides a suitable solution.
>  
> Propose changing the above to:
> 
> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
> architecture only,
> where the AFTR maintains (softwire) state for each subscriber. A means for
> 
> optmizing the amount of such state, as well as the option of meshed IPv4
> 
> connectivity between subscribers, are features of the [I-D.ietf-softwire-map
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softw
> ire-map> ] solution.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wojciech.
> 
>