IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 697B221F8569 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 04:20:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 pRDJEC5tocnf for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 04:20:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E3621F8542 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 04:20:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=731; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328703608; x=1329913208; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=12Wdqz8PMP+6VAyxQaUiSL5irorElI3m7DceHqt6ydo=; b=VVnPqppgMZT0UPSzb0zhZE8BBful5nImVnOHiIPuc39ASloXE8nLXqKg yeKeJ+wwGIjpv73CHp0ZzbDKZ1cpgkSHyTJJyZi6qeF4tXEn9PfHnggdT KSWDTca93hYLyUdPe2V57rT24J3fvSfsdckNI9CDP83vb0e4Wxqw6TnK5 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvkIAAtoMk+tJV2d/2dsb2JhbABDiVmmEwKBB4FyAQEBAwESASc/BQsCAQgYLlcBAQQTIodam1YBlwmLSis3AQcHAgQDAYJ8BRgCCwIFeIJ2YwSIRoxnjjyEPw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,383,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="57260288"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2012 12:20:08 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q18CK87G026656; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:20:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:20:08 -0600
Received: from 144.254.231.93 ([144.254.231.93]) by XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:20:07 +0000
References: <CB5749B9.1C43F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Thread-Index: AczmW/7B8Xq8IwrrTX26i3q+Ro6Shg==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <CB5749B9.1C43F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <1E2A9D37-5787-46E2-A0D4-B2E116FA0A80@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:20:06 -0500
To: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2012 12:20:08.0028 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEED51C0:01CCE65B]
Cc: 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 12:20:09 -0000

Indeed. Such a scenario makes little sense to me, given that MAP requires native IPv6 connectivity anyway.

IOW, if CE is able to get native IPv6 anyway for MAP, then anything non-native IPv6 would have no usage.  

Cheers,
Rajiv

Sent from my Phone

On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:36 PM, "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com> wrote:

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email