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

Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 00:58 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 D7D0321F852E for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 QmEHXa+VITc9 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv05.olivemail.cn (mx100.vip.olivemail.net [74.82.185.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498EA21F8515 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:58:18 -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 81D6F38005F for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from oray.cn (unknown [202.105.21.248]) by srv01.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with SMTP id 14F873400FE for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:58:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [172.17.251.214] (unknown [221.11.61.147]) by app (Coremail) with SMTP id +AWowJB7YgUecp9OjfgfAA--.42687S2; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:58:13 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <4E9F728C.7050801@jacni.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:59:56 +0800
From: Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
References: <D8334AA7-5001-4A92-B977-CE32931F4197@laposte.net> <CAAuHL_Cm6WYiM2Cu-fmu=gBLgTYDZ6hr56BfcXMoeS=Af4Q_jw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFUBMqUvrP-s1yrJ0=ToAA_SvRLWQtq7JCTtpASNiS1GAxdSNQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E9B9BC5.2090200@jacni.com> <CAFUBMqUS1cATWr07Os4d6aLUbNaVwuOCcthObOiMPuDv8VfU1g@mail.gmail.com> <4E9BE001.3060202@jacni.com> <6CADC58598A4D249AD3B5026CE8CC33906D75AC8@CI-EXMB-09V.bb.local> <CAFUBMqW7xqxwzToxn1=0y4q48Dr5U8rx3pDoavcWGhPyO-OLpw@mail.gmail.com> <4E9CEA60.6040208@jacni.com> <CAFUBMqXS9tJvs9Oz+NQczUkQvikEuyzRnX_iR4QE1_=tJA7OCA@mail.gmail.com> <4E9E2987.6070407@jacni.com> <CAFUBMqUp8dzW0AR96J9LYPKU4-zWnbQ6hjFgNUNKdFPxPQ=WxA@mail.gmail.com> <4E9E41C5.502@jacni.com> <CAFUBMqUHG2PdBa1mfyja=LM9eVKu=LMfgxvGzsMoeyFB8Au+YQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E9E81AA.5000009@jacni.com> <CAFUBMqXRJ1obTJD6_6MQ2jGJVua1y5WqfDJ9-Nq8x2KJU7Ys3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFUBMqXRJ1obTJD6_6MQ2jGJVua1y5WqfDJ9-Nq8x2KJU7Ys3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010408000102050302020202"
X-CM-TRANSID: +AWowJB7YgUecp9OjfgfAA--.42687S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Cr13Aw1ktFykArWkXF1fWFg_yoW8AF4rpF WDt3WUJFs5AF1kJrs7Zw18Wr15AFn5Ja1UJa15G34IkFZ8Xan29F4Uu3y5Z3W3XrWfXw10 vrsFv398u3W5ZaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrn_kYjxAI6xkYrwAYjxAI6xCIbckI1I0E57IF64kEYxAxM7k0a2IF6w1U M7kC6x804xWl1xkIjI8I6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1lnx0Ec2IEnICE548m6r 1DJrWUZwAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY 64vIr41l7480Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rVAqx4xJMxk0xIA0c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxvr21l42xK82IYc2 Ij64vIr41l4IxY624lx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrbIYCTnIWIev Ja73UjIFyTuYvjxUxnN3UUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: xmdf0xo6mdu03lof0z/1tbiAQEHEko7lOv2WwAAs2
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] 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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:58:20 -0000

hi,

On 10/19/2011 7:33 PM, Maoke wrote:
> ..
>
>>
>>>         a single value over the domain or possible variable among
>>>         different shared IPv4 addresses? (to my understanding, one
>>>         address should have a common value of PSID length for all
>>>         the CEs sharing the address, right?)
>>         The number of L equals the number of Delegated Prefixes of
>>         different lengths totally within a given domain, which should
>>         be determined during IPv6 address planning.
>>
>>
>>     they are equal to each other. but which determines which, in or
>>     before the IPv6 address planning?
>     IMHO, I guess the length of Delegated Prefix settled in phase of
>     the native IPv6 address planning without considering anything
>     about IPv4 addressing, determines the L.
>
>
> ?? 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.


Cheers,
Jacni

> thanks,
> maoke
>
>     Cheers,
>     Jacni
>
>
>>     delegated prefix length decides PSID length (sharing ratio), or
>>     inversely? is it not that the sharing ratio is determined by how
>>     many CEs sharing a unique IPv4 address?
>>
>>     best,
>>     maoke
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>         Jacni
>>
>>
>