Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Thu, 03 November 2011 09:22 UTC

Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A37B99455@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:22:56 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CBAF8E1F-78EF-4C3B-B3FF-C599E0695AE3@laposte.net>
References: <7017F405-CBEC-4D7D-94ED-56FF2B774C0C@laposte.net> <37EE7524-2AF1-4286-A80D-004E7958C5A0@gmail.com> <FCFFF724-847B-45D3-B6A5-1F937356F6B6@laposte.net> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A37B98DA7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <BA1F9EBE-CDFE-47DB-BE40-08033E62AF17@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A37B98E17@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <88E22674-98FF-4F21-ADA4-4F3E77A6401D@laposte.net> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A37B98E3B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <E296AD82-0AC6-460E-AB95-6AC6B8127008@cisco.com> <5225339E-1B72-456D-A0E7-2C96F2051EA3@juniper.net> <4EB214D3.7050900@jacni.com> <71723B71-64FD-4EE4-9E21-DE5D57E2FA60@laposte.net> <4EB255CC.30602@jacni.com> <CDFCECE5-A6F3-4C21-81D6-272C9F360E92@laposte.net> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A37B99455@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
Precedence: list

Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:14, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> a écrit :

> Hi Rémi, all,
> 
> Since there is only an excerpt of e-mails, I lost the context. 
> 
> Could you please clarify what is the issue discussed here? Thanks.

Sure.
Right or wrong, I understood that what Jacni suggested is that the v4/v6 address mapping would be able to assign full IPv4 addresses to CEs, but no longer IPv4 prefixes.

If I misunderstood, end of this subject for me.
Otherwise, I argue that keeping IPv4-prefix support isn't difficult.

Hope it clarifies.
 
Cheers,
RD



> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Rémi Després [mailto:despres.remi@laposte.net] 
>> Envoyé : jeudi 3 novembre 2011 10:05
>> À : Jacni Qin
>> Cc : Alain Durand; Ole Troan; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; 
>> Satoru Matsushima; Softwires WG
>> Objet : Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 
>> address mapping?
>> 
>> 
>> Le 3 nov. 2011 à 09:50, Jacni Qin a écrit :
>>>>> if the MAP just covers "shared address with one single 
>> sharing ratio for one domain",
>>>>> the design will be greatly simplified?
>>>> Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, 
>> just to serve the few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, 
>> seems to me a step backward.
>>>> 
>>>> Besides, I have serious doubts about "greatly simplified".
>>> I mean for the design of the address/port mapping 
>> algorithm, not the transport mechanism.
>> 
>> Yes, but I don't see the great simplification of the algorithm.
>> Keeping it general enough to support IPv4 prefixes is AFAIK 
>> easy. It doesn't prevent deployments where, IPv4 prefixes 
>> being not supported, fields can be at places that may be 
>> found more convenient.
>> 
>> Maybe you can be more specific on your concern.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> RD
>>

Re: [Softwires] Port mapping - Don't change it at… Rémi Després
Re: [Softwires] Port mapping - Don't change it at… Jacni Qin
Re: [Softwires] Port mapping - Don't change it at… Ole Troan
[Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes i… Rémi Després
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefix… mohamed.boucadair
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefix… Rémi Després
[Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes i… Rémi Després
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefix… Jacni Qin
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefix… Jacni Qin