IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] MAP Open issues: Interface-id

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Tue, 08 November 2011 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.com>
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 8273721F8B85 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:34:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 E2lKG1hnSEJo for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22E421F8B7E for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyg30 with SMTP id 30so257734wyg.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:34:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aZ0Vs5Uqe/u7TGzB01qAz6oXK5/pYyRXfbhR0/bIO2U=; b=nlvp7ukFOT7Yu9uTaM9tnbABJhcqyvf2inkGnz6cve2JkL2TAad6kuNqvy+zDbXavK OQW2qWwu4xNbiWjSh9Y+SXRhSApYChHeD3lC4NABE+zDM+eWaFm9uptRegaS9mEKSTl3 AUV7a04i1XiMgcv579QSq2Xibj7QKnW14I6rg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.89.5 with SMTP id bk5mr11738427wib.60.1320741285844; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.102.8 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:34:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9D6EBB21-38BC-4E6C-99E6-C3448FA2D3C8@laposte.net>
References: <703EB6B3-AB8C-4690-91C6-2666C5779874@cisco.com> <9D6EBB21-38BC-4E6C-99E6-C3448FA2D3C8@laposte.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:34:45 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMESudUt5PT+qxQED_P2s7DB7T+3D_M4OWQ1yUvNN-xqhzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP Open issues: Interface-id
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, 08 Nov 2011 08:34:47 -0000

2011/11/7, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>:
> Ole,
>
> 1. Checksum neutrality being an open question, it is relevant here.
> 2. It is useful AFAIK to distinguish CE addresses from BR addresses.
>
> The best proposal I know so far is as follows (with CNP = Checksum
> neutrality preserver)
>
> CE ADDRESS
>
> <- - - - - - IPv6 Unformatted  address (104 bits) - - - ->
> +-------------------+----------+----------+---------------+
> | Rule IPv6 prefix  |IPv4 suff.| Max PSID |  Padding = 0  |
> +-------------------+----------+----------+---------------+
> :
> :<- - - - - - - - - 64  - - - - - >:<- - - - 40 - - - - ->:
> :                                  :\                      \
> :                                  <8>                      :<- 16 ->
> :                                  : :                      :        :
> +----------------------------------'-'----------------------+--------+
> | IPv6 unformatted address (part 1)|V|                      |   CNP  |
>
> +----------------------------------+-+----------------------+--------+
> <- - - - - - - - - - -  IPv6 address (108 bits)  - - - - - - - - - - >
>
>
>
> BR ADDRESS
>
> +------------------------------------+-+-----------------+-+-------+
> |              BR IPv6 prefix        |V|   IPv4 address  |0|  CNP  |
> +------------------------------------+-+-----------------+-+-------+
> < - - - - - - - - - 64  - - - - - - ><8><- - -  32 - - -><8><  16  >
>

+1
The checksum neutrality is desirable for translation case.
I suggest to take above format into consideration

BRs

Gang

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email