Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation

[Qiong <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Remi and Jacni,

Thanks for the discussion.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Rémi Després <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> The 4rd function examines ALL packets that reach the CE.
> It processes all those that have V in their destination addresses, and only
> those.
>

Qiong: I think it might be better achieved via routing lookup for prefix+V
bits (e.g. /80 ), rather than extracting V bits before traditional routing.


>
> The reason why 4rd packets reach the CE is NOT that their destinations are
> the IPv6 address that the CE has on its link to the ISP.
> It is that their destinations start with the CE delegated prefix. The
> routing information base of the ISP edge router is such that, for such
> destinations, the next hop is the CE.
>
>
> Then the variable "max" PSID derived from dst. ports may get a problem.
>
>  Qiong: I think the "max" PSID design might have a problem in virtual
interface implementation. When implementing an virtual
encapsulation/translation interface, the packets can reach the virtual
interface from a downstream physical interface via traditional routing. For
example, identifying a specific address or /80 prefix to the destinated
virtual interface. However, when the "max" PSID is not stable and the length
of "Rule IPv6 prefix+ Max PSID" exceeds 64 bit long, how to construct this
kind of internal routing table ? I think it would be too many routing
entries here.

Best wishes

Qiong

Not AFAIK because of the above.
>
> Hope it clarifies.
> Cheers,
> RD
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jacni
>
>
>
>