Re: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01

[Maoke <[e-mail]>]

2011/10/20 Jacni Qin <[e-mail]>
>
>  ?? i suppose previously with your clarification you HAVE admitted your
> consensus to my 1) ~ 4) as the logic of the operation, but now you said
> "without considering anything about IPv4". may you clarify your process with
> starting from the following example?
>
>   Sorry, maybe there was some misunderstanding between us.
> I mean you don't need to consider IPv4 when try to decide the length of
> delegated prefix to be assigned to customer. Maybe it was appropriate to use
> the word "anything". ;-)
> Something should be considered if you need multiple sharing ratios.
>
>
>  i allocate:
>    CE1 2001:db9:8765:4320::/60
>    CE2 2001:db8:7654:3210::/60
> then the IPv6 address planning is finished according to your statement.
>
>  then what information should i use to determine the L for each? you mean
> the IPv6 address planning is enough?
>
>   Yes.
>
>
your yes is in the case of there is not multiple sharing ratios, right? ;-)

if it is right, i agree with you that the planning is independent of IPv4
knowledge. if there are multiple ratios, i understanding the start of the
PSIDs must be aligned among the delegated IPv6 prefixes.

best,
maoke


> Cheers,
> Jacni
>