IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jacni@jacni.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 ABFED21F8D26 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.871
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 epSBpr0wBZpm for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv05.olivemail.cn (mx100.vip.olivemail.net [74.82.185.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFD021F8D25 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.olivemail.cn (unknown [202.105.21.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by srv05.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with ESMTPS id 35C233800BF for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from oray.cn (unknown [202.105.21.248]) by srv01.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with SMTP id CDD44340107 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:42:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [172.18.104.54] (unknown [221.11.61.100]) by app (Coremail) with SMTP id +AWowJDrWwkHQ7NOB0AwAA--.2399S2; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:42:44 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <4EB34380.2040200@jacni.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:44:32 +0800
From: Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@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> <A9FED2D1-80D0-445C-BA80-54A7E5DE8B03@cisco.com> <A4A4E371-FF5F-48F2-BFB3-C22D41D2C4C4@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <A4A4E371-FF5F-48F2-BFB3-C22D41D2C4C4@laposte.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040006090104010908090805"
X-CM-TRANSID: +AWowJDrWwkHQ7NOB0AwAA--.2399S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrKw4rCFW7tFy5Jw4xGr13CFg_yoWDXwc_uF Z5CFyDZw4jqF4kKw4FyFnY9rZ3XryUZ34UX34Y9wn2k34FyFs3Crsa9ryxCry5GF4jyrnx Xa1aya4Iga47AjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUjV8YjxAI6xkYrwAYjxAI6xCIbckI1I0E57IF64kEYxAxM7k0a2IF 6w4kM7kC6x804xWl1xkIjI8I6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1ln4vEF2I2jVAKz4 k2z4x0Y4y06c8GOVWUtr48Gw4ln4vEF2I2jVAKz4k2z4x0Y4yY6c8GOVWUtr48Gw4ln4vE 4IxY62xKV4CY8xCE548m6r4UJryUGwAa7VCY0VAaVVAqrcv_Jw1UWr13McIj6xIIjxv20x vE14v26r106r15McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0 I7xG6c02F41lc7I2V7IY0VAS07AlzVAYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFw20E84ACjc xK64kEx2IqYxC7MxCIbVAxMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr4UvcSsG vfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU0XyCJUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: xmdf0xo6mdu03lof0z/1tbiAQECEko7lPH97QAAsU
Cc: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:42:49 -0000

hi,

On 11/3/2011 5:24 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
> Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:04, Ole Troan a écrit :
> ...
>>> 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.
>> can you clarify why this? I don't understand why IPv4 routing has to be maintained just because there is a MAP domain with full IPv4 addresses (or a rule for full IPv4 addresses)?
> I didn't say that.
>
> IF the address mapping can't assign IPv4 prefixes to CEs, AND IF an ISP has to support some users needing IPv4 prefixes, it needs a tool to do it.
> I supposed that maintaining IPv4 routing was the easiest way to do it.
> If you have a better alternative, what would it be?
If the customer is likely to pay that much for a prefix, I guess these 
won't be a problem any more. For example, just setup a dedicated tunnel 
and add a piece of route for them.


Cheers,
Jacni

> As said to Med, if I misunderstood Jacni's idea, this debate can be closed.
>
> Cheers,
> RD
>
>
>
>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status