Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Wed, 08 February 2012 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 C1BC521F85F9 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 c+3tVO2UwsVG for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:16:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp24.services.sfr.fr (smtp24.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E91421F8594 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2412.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9645470000C1; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:16:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2412.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6AE6A700006E; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:16:08 +0100 (CET)
X-SFR-UUID: 20120208071608437.6AE6A700006E@msfrf2412.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <CB5749B9.1C43F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:16:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B8BE7670-E467-4D0D-A6C0-37BBDB51BEC4@laposte.net>
References: <CB5749B9.1C43F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
To: Yiu Lee <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>, Tina Tsou <tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:16:11 -0000

Le 2012-02-08 à 03:36, Lee, Yiu a écrit :

> May I ask a question. Why will people deploy MAP over another tunnel
> schema such as 6rd?

6rd can be deployed over Net-10 networks (RFC1918) to deployIPv6.
Shared public IPv4 addresses can then be offered to customers via this IPv6.
Such a use case, based on the header-mappiong variant of 4rd-U rather than on a double MAP encapsulation, is described in tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-03#section-5.4.

RD



> 
> On 2/7/12 1:27 PM, "Tina TSOU" <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>> Now if they have to deploy MAP over this for 4over6 traversal, is MAP
>> always independent of whether 6to4 was used or 6rd used.....because the
>> prefix delegation is different in each.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires