Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

"Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 02:37 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 7A7E411E80A1 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:37:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.381
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, 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 bHBAvG2jtW8Y for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957C011E809B for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([24.40.56.116]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.5449884; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:27:07 -0700
Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::a5b0:e5c4:df1b:2367]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::5527:6d6b:29a7:f414%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:36:43 -0500
From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Thread-Index: AQHM5gp9TNZJnwdqZkSM5EuJMyYGlw==
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:36:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CB5749B9.1C43F%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7C3BA22-EDEF-4150-8A70-36400EF82A4D@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.70]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <14FBDF51490F854D8E444173204C2048@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tina TSOU <tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com>, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <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 02:37:09 -0000

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.
>