Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Le 10 oct. 2011 à 17:12, Qiong a écrit :

> Hi, Remi and Jacni,
> 
> Thanks for the discussion.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Rémi Després <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The 4rd function examines ALL packets that reach the CE.
> It processes all those that have V in their destination addresses, and only those.
> 
> Qiong: I think it might be better achieved via routing lookup for prefix+V bits (e.g. /80 ), rather than extracting V bits before traditional routing.
>  
> 
> The reason why 4rd packets reach the CE is NOT that their destinations are the IPv6 address that the CE has on its link to the ISP. 
> It is that their destinations start with the CE delegated prefix. The routing information base of the ISP edge router is such that, for such destinations, the next hop is the CE. 
> 
> 
>> Then the variable "max" PSID derived from dst. ports may get a problem.

>  Qiong: I think the "max" PSID design might have a problem in virtual interface implementation. When implementing an virtual encapsulation/translation interface, the packets can reach the virtual interface from a downstream physical interface via traditional routing.

> For example, identifying a specific address or /80 prefix to the destinated virtual interface. However, when the "max" PSID is not stable and the length of "Rule IPv6 prefix+ Max PSID" exceeds 64 bit long, how to construct this kind of internal routing table ? I think it would be too many routing entries here.

Routing being only concerned with /64s, and information in IIDs being used only by 4rd functions themselves, or for O&M, I don't see the problem.

Regards,
RD






> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Qiong
> 
> Not AFAIK because of the above.
> 
> Hope it clarifies.
> Cheers,
> RD
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jacni
>> 
>> 
> 
>