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

Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com> Mon, 26 September 2011 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jacni@jacni.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 9414521F8A70 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.578
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 s3X3yB6fSphO for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv05.olivemail.cn (mx100.vip.olivemail.net [74.82.185.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B548A21F86DD for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.olivemail.cn (unknown [202.105.21.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by srv05.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with ESMTPS id 459D63800C3 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from oray.cn (unknown [202.105.21.248]) by srv01.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with SMTP id C56D23400F9 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:11:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [172.26.173.129] (unknown [112.64.191.139]) by app (Coremail) with SMTP id +AWowJDLlAeYJYBOMzUMAA--.16852S2; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:11:38 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <4E8025F8.9030703@jacni.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:12:56 +0800
From: Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
References: <D8334AA7-5001-4A92-B977-CE32931F4197@laposte.net> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA05762CCB@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4E7FB69B.7070608@jacni.com> <C9BC10A1-0F12-4742-9C0F-01A307ADFF26@mimectl>
In-Reply-To: <C9BC10A1-0F12-4742-9C0F-01A307ADFF26@mimectl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010808070903010507030208"
X-CM-TRANSID: +AWowJDLlAeYJYBOMzUMAA--.16852S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxWFWftFy3Cw48ur48Xw4rAFb_yoW5tr4kpF WfAa9xKFnrXw1xGws3uw1Uur1qvF4kJayUJr15Gr1Sk345uFn2vrWj9ryrJrWUJrWrJFyk Jr1UuFyUJanxtrJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUxlb7IF0VCYb41lb7IF0VCFI7km07C26c804VAKzcIF0wAYjsxI 4VWxJwAYFVCjjxCrM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM2k07cx0zVAaqw AawVACjsI_Ar4v6c8GOVW06r1DJrWUAwAawVCIc40E5I027xCE548m6r1DJr4UtwAa7VCY 0VAaVVAqrcv_Jw1UWr13Mc02F40E42I26xC2a48xMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18Mc Ij6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41lc7I2 V7IY0VAS07AlzVAYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFI7vE84CIb48I67vvx24l4IxY62 4lx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU s0tCDUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: xmdf0xo6mdu03lof0z/1tbiAQEDEko7lOOlSAAAs6
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] 答复: 4rd Address Mapping - version-01
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:09:09 -0000


On 9/26/2011 9:54 AM, Leaf yeh wrote:
>
> Jacni - It is used to route packets to the unique CE, but the CE index
> in the CE IPv6 address is derived from, for example, the IPv4
> destination address + Port.
>
> I thought the CE index (the fixed part of the rule), not the max CE
> index (which includes the dynamic part), could derived from the IPv4
> destination address + Port in the received IPv4 packets at BR.
>
The max CE index (formed based on the "max PSID" which is of 12 bits got
from the port, 12 bits may probably be longer than the length of the
real PSID of the target CE) is used by sending CE when forming the IPv6
address of the target CE based on the IPv4 destination address + port.


Cheers,
Jacni

> Best Regards,
>
> Leaf
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *发件人:* Jacni Qin [jacni@jacni.com]
> *发送时间:* 2011年9月26日 7:17
> *到:* Leaf yeh
> *Cc:* Rémi Després; Softwires-wg
> *主题:* Re: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01
>
>
>
> On 9/24/2011 7:01 PM, Leaf yeh wrote:
>>
>> The following is my quick comments & questions on the new updated draft.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping/?include_text=1
>>
>>
>> Section 6
>>
>> …Its CE IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv6 prefix, and Rule
>>
>> IPv4 prefix, are supposed to be respectively 2001:db4:4444:4000::/52,
>>
>> 2001:db0::/28, and 192.32../12 (i.e. 0x602). …
>>
>> C1. The 1^st 3 hex of the Rule IPv4 prefix, 0x602, should turn to be
>> 96.32.0.0/12, right?
>>
>> Section 7
>>
>> Item Hexadecimal Value Nb of bits
>>
>> - IPv4 port : 8488 16
>>
>> - Derived
>>
>> Max Port-set ID: 488 12
>>
>> - IPv4 address : 60244444 32
>>
>> - Rule IPv4 prefix
>>
>> that matches this
>>
>> IPv4 address : 602 12
>>
>> - Resulting CE index : 44444488 32
>>
>> - Rule IPv6 prefix
>>
>> of the Rule : 20010DB 28
>>
>> - Padding to 64 bits : 0 4
>>
>> - Resulting
>>
>> CE IPv6 address : 20010DB44444488002005EFE00000000 128
>>
>> - Prefix routed
>>
>> to the CE : 20010DB444444 52
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> C2. I supposed the CE IPv6 address is associated with the CE index
>> (including part of IPv4 address delegated & masked by the Rule IPv4
>> prefix + the fixed PSID) to identify the unique CE device, not
>> associated the dynamic part of the IPv4 layer-4 port. Otherwise,
>> there will be a bunch of IPv6 address associated with one CE.
>>
> It is used to route packets to the unique CE, but the CE index in the
> CE IPv6 address is derived from, for example, the IPv4 destination
> address + Port.
>
>> Q1. Any more words for the understanding on the case definition of
>> double-translation?
>>
> Please refer to the 4rd-T draft or other translation based approaches.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jacni
>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Leaf
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org]
>> On Behalf Of Rémi Després
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:18 PM
>> To: Softwires-wg
>> Subject: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01
>>
>> Alain, all,
>>
>> We have just posted a new version of our I-D on the proposed 4rd
>> Address Mapping.
>>
>> It is available at
>>
>> www.ietf.org/id/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping-01.txt
>>
>> Our presentation will be based on THIS version, technically simpler
>> than version -00.
>>
>> Major differences and their justifications will be briefly explained.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> RD
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Softwires mailing list
>>
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires