Hi Fred, On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:35 -0800, Templin, Fred L wrote: > So, the packet coming in to the DM would have: > > inner_src=EID(A) inner_dst=EID(B) > outer_src=RLOC(ITR) outer_dst=RLOC(DM) > > and (after the DM does the mapping lookup) the packet coming > out of the DM would have: > > inner_src=EID(A) inner_dst=EID(B) > outer_src=RLOC(ITR) outer_src=RLOC(ETR) > > In this way, the DM is "off-link" from the viewpoint of the > ETR, and the ETR gets to perform link-scoped operations (e.g., > IPv6 ND) with the ITR as if it were an on-link neighbor. Is > this what you had in mind? >
Yes it is, for the reasons you stated. However our current APT design allows TRs to communicate with the default mappers when necessary(for failure handling and such). Our recent focus on an incrementally deployable design from evolutionary principles may cause us to re-examine these choices though. > The alternative is for the DM to decapsulate, perform the > mapping, then re-encapsulate while injecting its RLOC as > the outer_src in the transaction, which makes it such that > the ITR is off-link from the viewpoint of the ETR - not > so good for link-scoped operations. > > I would prefer option A, if that is OK with you. Very okay, unless we discover good arguments to do otherwise. Thanks for putting thought into this! Dan _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
