IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] 答复: Stateless implementation plan

"Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.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 7A0D921F8693 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.940, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 NS5do+7eQLCX for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A0321F8601 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.150961379; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:37:24 -0500
Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::a5b0:e5c4:df1b:2367]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:37:24 -0500
From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
To: Linjian Song <songlinjian@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: 答复: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Thread-Index: AczmG1n1cbmJP2NARJS5yMNtquYIoQ==
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:37:23 +0000
Message-ID: <2981E430-DD96-438D-BAE7-6F0F531FE32B@Cable.Comcast.com>
References: <C7C3BA22-EDEF-4150-8A70-36400EF82A4D@huawei.com> <CB5749B9.1C43F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <001501cce617$bc50f400$34f2dc00$@com>
In-Reply-To: <001501cce617$bc50f400$34f2dc00$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-ID: <A661C714DEDC5E47B1228386897063B3@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] 答复: 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 04:37:51 -0000

I am ok with that. I guess I was confused by the phase "they have to deploy MAP over this for 4over6 traversal". I assume "this" refers to 6o4 tunneling technique. If somebody wants to implement MAP and 6rd on the same edge router, i don't see any problem. This is similar to implement NAT44 and NAT64 on the same network element.

Cheers,
Yiu

On Feb 7, 2012, at 23:11, "Linjian Song" <songlinjian@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess several scenarios may overlap in one network topology.  MAP and 6rd
> functions can be built on a certain edge router？ 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> Lee, Yiu
> 发送时间: 2012年2月8日 10:37
> 收件人: Tina TSOU; Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> 抄送: softwires@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
> 
> 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.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email