Re: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01

Congxiao Bao <congxiao@cernet.edu.cn> Tue, 04 October 2011 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <congxiao@cernet.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3C221F8D00 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_HAS_XAIMC=2.696, MANGLED_FROM=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5rUMtnM1ySF6 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cernet.edu.cn (mail.cernet.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D82921F8CF8 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [114.250.77.201]([114.250.77.201]) by cernet.edu.cn(AIMC 3.2.0.0) with SMTP id jm364e8b368a; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:32:31 +0800
Message-ID: <4E8B2708.8000804@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:32:24 +0800
From: Congxiao Bao <congxiao@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
References: <CANb4Oc=QqdxCJVj+LNaOimZPT_mPPa-MQmwZaBM=92_QVrFiWA@mail.gmail.com> <67E4A8C5-B119-45DB-8367-BDF55A380DC4@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <67E4A8C5-B119-45DB-8367-BDF55A380DC4@laposte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AIMC-AUTH: congxiao
X-AIMC-MAILFROM: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
X-AIMC-Msg-ID: vCtyGL1B
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:59:29 -0700
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>, Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:29:31 -0000

Hi Remi,

Ok, we will draft a document on using existing tools for O&M in 
dIVI/dIVI-PD very soon.

Best,

Congxiao


Rémi Després 写道:
> Hi Xing, Congxiao,
>
> Le 4 oct. 2011 à 15:26, xiaohong deng a écrit :
> ...
>   
>> It IMHO would be helpful if anybody would clarify some details to 1)
>> first prove source based classification is either a valid or a
>> non-valid requirement for address mapping; For this regard, I would
>> begin with that why do we think the source based IPv4 classification
>> ability instead of the more general five-tuple based IPv4
>> classification ability should be reserved, when deliver IPv4 over
>> IPv6?
>>     
>
> What about starting from your conclusion slide in Beijing?
>
> It says:
>
> "dIVI/dIVI-PD can use existing tools for O&M
> – Null route
> – ACL
> – eACL
> – PBR
> – QoS
> – Caching"
>
> Open questions include:
> - Which addresses are used for these O&M functions? (source? destination?, CE to CE?, CE to BR?, BR to CE?)
> - Are ports within IPv6 payloads used, or just addresses?
>
> Thank you if you can share your views on this.
>
> Regards,
> RD 
>
>
>
>
>