IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Port mapping - Don't change it at the last minute !

Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> Thu, 03 November 2011 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ot@cisco.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 0576011E80F7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 02:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 QvvRnBsUO0Fe for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 02:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BA511E8088 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 02:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ot@cisco.com; l=626; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320311079; x=1321520679; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9K1OGPbwSi/EVbztkK1sf3dcZD1N3HfyvJgNHerhqhQ=; b=BOasngHHtNsxG4d7ZsIN1T62OGclz2iumtiJwPziiRk4IhW8xQOwtunx iupPI8V8D3xwyrJafCWhl98U82RzNP4xec6bGy24oUhKOJzh85aHfZlxG 53ondooyQ3wXiJo9XJBCgvpeMLJU+UwiP1u5hfreHIKhmD6tKr9bIoHPa A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAJtYsk6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABEqXeBBYFyAQEBAwESASc/EAtGVwY1h2CWFgGed4g9YQSUFpFm
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,448,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="2322432"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2011 09:04:37 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp5294.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp5294.cisco.com [10.61.84.173]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA394aa3020260; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:04:37 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <71723B71-64FD-4EE4-9E21-DE5D57E2FA60@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:04:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A9FED2D1-80D0-445C-BA80-54A7E5DE8B03@cisco.com>
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>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Port mapping - Don't change it at the last minute !
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:04:40 -0000

Remi,

[...]

>> Furthermore, there is already an approach adopted by the WG for public IPv4 address case,
> 
>> 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.

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)?

cheers,
Ole

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