IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 06 March 2014 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125A31A025E for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEZ8t6lBJ_2v for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12B51A0140 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E36F60DA; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:10:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=NqQJbswXVPHInxbrlrIgT12e/P0=; b= cz3tMwEFuosba/sH3IElpFVBpqNf9J3A405RaABiSdo3btN56dSoIUrUW24Z2LeN Pf5vkybLIlNtjtsWIXuDtfi8uwD4yFA4lpp9A5zJjVNtHGeJu2OVfCxTN6smqxwZ 5KccKJVq7o560V96hVwXm2Qknz+Wi7kbLpNzbOZQdI0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=RAk9xQfbHCc0bTti6k95iKkKUf NFGlx8mX9oiZyIpj2O6CShaiGHhsGrQbLwh+/ia1XqlgXvLRC4zmWpHu8ywdjnHO WwBqIhly4wmGyy2MyYHuBS1LlXm1bk0NKckTNHlEJTZ5HliN9sd6AN0qdo2KWt5E JyIAvhuBNnGRW5JH0=
Received: from dhcp-10-61-102-49.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8495C60C4; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E0934EC5-19C8-4655-B14A-2E17F144E99B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <2014030615595650398421@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:10:13 +0000
Message-Id: <BFEB5F55-C6F1-4173-BC39-62ECC91E41BB@employees.org>
References: <20140211075445.17615.61208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FD878467-904B-4441-95B4-11D4461A612E@employees.org> <CF237FDE.AACEB%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4jOBfvnqCV4UH8qt0HA5zZ-35f+q5ZepzjnwGX5_Oj9Gg@mail.gmail.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2CDB8ED2@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CAFFjW4iP2KqNJFtJPr5rp0tzRwM5TPjaqiSP5r13JqbX46ao7w@mail.gmail.com> <CD1D4FF6-9509-43B4-AFC4-4F1AF99D0C4D@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4ibkj_xpTuXrbYjxkdxD=+qNzapCGPHJwXsZ-k0ZvGg-g@mail.gmail.com> <CF335888.AE89D%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4hv5WBiqyw9jM+ZoLMGR5k49pjKXG0epnhrsOGoBBKMYA@mail.gmail.com> <78CE37BA-11FB-4AE4-9D49-A3053616A31A@gmx.com> <53173611.5070208@viagenie.ca> <4255E91E-B1F0-4FE0-9A86-171922C7BC43@gmx.com> <6BE4C1C1-17D6-44B6-A9FC-F270D29AA0B0@employees.org> <F946C230-B91C-4463-823B-C3FB3B0577F2@gmx.com>, <98DA6B17-C07E-40B8-AABE-8A4D0D5F687A@employees.org> <2014030615595650398421@gmail.com>
To: chenycmx <chenycmx@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/7wI1d6257QXNEJuaxh-6sNPgnWc
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:10:23 -0000

Yuchi,

> IMHO doing LPM with the lwAFTR's address is more straightforward than with a "Domain v6 prefix".
> 
> In addition, I don't see why Ian's proposal cannot cover the case you mentioned, the case in which an address out of the prefix domain can be chosen as the tunnel endpoint address. If lwB4 has been provisioned with such an address, and if this address does have a LPM with lwAFTR's address, lwB4 can still use it as the tunnel endpoint address. Please correct me if I'm missing anything.

there are two issues here.

1) in the unified CPE context. is there a benefit in having the same algorithm to choose the CE tunnel endpoint address?
    are the requirements different?
2) pick the right mechanism for tunnel end point determination. in your above scheme you do not have the same flexibility as you have with a provisioned prefix selector 

I though we had covered one in previous discussions, but there might be something I've missed.
are we in agreement on this point? that it is beneficial to use the same mechanism for tunnel endpoint address determination on the CE.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email