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

[<[e-mail]>]

Great. That works for me.

Cheers,
Ian


On 11/04/2013 09:46, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Ian,
>
>> I think that the change that you've proposed would help. But actually
>>the
>> worst offender is in section 5:
>> 
>> Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the
>> Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route to the MAP BR.
>> 
>> 
>> What about if this read?:
>> 
>> Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the
>> Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route via a tunnel to the
>>MAP
>> BR.
>
>
>that's not quite correct if we model the MAP domain as an NBMA link which
>all MAP nodes
>are connected to. what about adding similar text to what is in 6rd?
>
>"
>   When 6rd is enabled, a typical CE router will install a default route
>   to the BR, a black hole route for the 6rd delegated prefix, and
>   routes for any LAN side assigned and advertised prefixes.  For
>   example, using a CE IPv4 address of 10.100.100.1, a BR IPv4 address
>   of 10.0.0.1, an IPv4MaskLen of 8, 2001:db8::/32 as the 6rdPrefix, and
>   one /64 prefix assigned to a LAN side interface, a typical CE routing
>   table will look like:
>
>     ::/0 -> 6rd-virtual-int0 via 2001:db8:0:100:: (default route)
>     2001:db8::/32 -> 6rd-virtual-int0 (direct connect to 6rd)
>     2001:db8:6464:100::/56 -> Null0 (delegated prefix null route)
>     2001:db8:6464:100::/64 -> Ethernet0 (LAN interface)
>"
>
>cheers,
>Ole