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

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Hi Congxiao,
Thanks for your comment.
Please sea inline.

Le 2 oct. 2011 à 08:58, Qiong a écrit :

> Hi Ole and Remi,
> 
> > This is my answer to your first (double) question.
> > If it is not enough, as suggested below, please explain what you don't understand.
> 
> I specifically do not want a solution that changes forwarding behaviour for _all_ IPv6 packets.
> e.g. looking at 24 bits in the middle of an IPv6 address is such a change.

Having a recognizable field in the IID doesn't imply any change of forwarding behavior (still done on up to /64s).
 
> 
> I don't understand what requirements you are basing this 'solution' on.
> if the 4rd / dIVI CE takes (a well known or provisioned) /64 prefix out of the delegated prefix. then why do you need any of that?
>  
> Qiong : I agree that routing lookup for a provisioned /64 prefix would be better that extracting certain bits for each IPv6 address in CE. This would bring less change to existing routing model.

Having a recognizable field in the IID doesn't change the possibility to lookup for a provisioned /64 prefix.
It only opens the ADDITIONAL possibility to recognize IPv4 addresses without knowledge of any IPv6 prefix.
This is useful in particular in use cases where:
- some ALGs are enforced by devices that can't do prefix matching
- the same IPv6 prefixes are used for real IPv6 addresses and embedded IPv4 addresses.
MORE GENERAL (open to more use cases without excluding any).

Hope it clarifies,

Regards,
RD


> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Qiong 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>