Re: [Idr] Fw: Re: New Version Notification for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extention-4map6-00.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


> *[Chongfeng]: *It is not about the "duplicate" of the routing
> information, it is just about the mapping of IPv4 routes into IPv6 domain
> on the basis of address mapping rule, so the capacity of the control plane
> will not double.
>
>
The control plane size will not double but quadruple as you are using new
SAFI and new NLRIs with IPv4-mapped-IPv6 addresses .

Just look at 128 bits for 1M nets vs 32 bits for the very same amount of 1M
nets.

You are forgetting that the strongest friend in the control plane and the
data plane is indirection.


Furthermore, the forwarding of IPv4 services in P routers will be
based on IPv6 FIB, the size of which is
>>
>> In all cases forwarding in P routers will be based on IPv6 FIB so I do
> not understand why you are highlighting it here.
> *[Chongfeng]:  * You mentioned the cost issue before, and IPv6-only in
> multi-domain networks can reduce the cost of data forwarding, so I
> highlighted it.  BTW, What does "in all cases" here mean?
>
>

Your statement sounded like what I am describing would not be forwarded
based on IPv6 FIB so I commented on it.


*[Chongfeng]: * In large-scale networks, it is not enough to achieve
> IPv4/IPv6 packet conversion only through local algorithmic computing. To
> convert an IPv4 address to an IPv6 address in PE, it needs to obtain the
> IPv6 address prefix of remote-end to identify the location of the IPv4
> address block in the IPv6 network in advance.
> In addition, I think the/96 prefix you mentioned is about the choice of
> prefix length, which can be considered in the future.
>
>

I disagree. Irrespective of network scale you can algorithmically and
consistently insert a bit string into a packet.

And the algorithm we are talking about it well know so there is no issue
what so ever.

I am not talking about some local domain mapping.

Thx,
R.


>