Re: [Softwires] MAP Open issues: Interface-id

hi,

On 11/8/2011 5:17 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>> ...
>>> the consequence of that is that the destination IPv6 address will change for every flow.
>> If a source ignores the destination PSID length, yes, IPv6 addresses of two flows going to the same CE may differ.
>> But so what?
>> - The IPv4 packet submitted to the CE NAT is the same as the source IPv4 packet
>> - The final destinations behind the NAT may differ too
>>
>>
>>> the MAP node cannot any longer listen to a single IPv6 address for MAP traffic, but has to intercept packets for a whole prefix.
>> - BR's of double translation have always had this property.
>> - Talking with Mark townsley, I got the understanding that this wasn't a real problem, at least with IOS.
> everything can be _implemented_, that's not the point.
>
>> =>  Clarifying this point would IMHO be useful.
> it is clearly requiring bigger changes to tunnel code. which unlike NAT code is attached to 'one' endpoint.
> it makes co-existence of a MAP endpoint and native IPv6 nodes within a single /64 much harder.
+ 1


Cheers,
Jacni

> let us turn this around. what's the point in embedding a new set of CNP bits in the IPv6 address, when the L4 checksum can be incrementally updated. that's what everyone has existing code to do already...
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>