Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 25 April 2014 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 DF1791A0478 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, 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 hBgTd9XZ2KVf for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D051A0473 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AA9626B; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=selector1; bh=0EWWudqHeU76bnoDpZs64 63tWlU=; b=fJpSWdCEuZrKloLidghPt0ePuj0xejbAGz+oN3pmP2zrR0CtMXGV1 sT7wJVwX/+Y+6Eh1zZJjr5cVFzPrzjGshb6bwNMjd1it6TCZpZKCs8GHXd1S+CH/ 0/pwj9pWKDKTvrYF1lmfPQb7hdn5UoBh+4HARIsIf1Dm+GbF+CqYd4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=B3lQD0iWCz665J8 wsXJCPxaFhVCnhVm6y58Gbl2imIGtDTowouowvN+aggCSukhJv/vxeazKxDPrr8F 5ot7iet/hYd7202uhOg/wuwfFFtYPHVo8/j8jhnVrCwkF2bwEGJHtLYKsebIVfCu J8X8lzcemSYLKpQtOf60nFyZHSQU=
Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-155.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97376635F; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0CD99A68-80D3-4F42-84CE-2E9D7BEE3FDC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <5359C237.2030007@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:11:57 +0200
Message-Id: <7191C279-B1B5-496A-BE5F-7A051D5E0FD4@employees.org>
References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <5359C237.2030007@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/x10Ox2kCbH5NYjhaFNR83FeylUY
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:13:23 -0000

Tom,

> I'm a bit late on this, but it comes from trying to sort out what the underlying information will look like as Diameter AVPs coming from AAA. This is just a question for clarification.
> 
> As indicated in Section 5, bullet 1 of the MAP-E document, a MAP CE can be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes, each associated with its own Basic Mapping Rule.
> 
> If I read things correctly in section 5.1 of draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt, there are two cases:
> (1) Multiple domains: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE will be present.
> 
> (2) Single domain, multiple subnets: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_RULE will be present within a single instance of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE.
> 
> In either case, the correlation between the End-user IPv6 prefix and its corresponding Basic Mapping Rule is achieved through longest match. A good CPE implementation will validate that there is a 1-1 correspondence between the BMRs and the provisioned End-user IPv6 prefixes.
> 
> Is my understanding correct?

yes, I believe so.
although for (2) multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes is independent of multiple rules. there will be exactly one BMR per MAP domain.

cheers,
Ole