IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Sun, 09 October 2011 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@gmail.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 57D7221F8B8E for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 XHf1U7650sUr for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7631D21F8BAE for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so7252417iab.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 20:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Cl+CCy3QeHeBpvjOUsK5aqecr0/6G60L/Z5bm77htTY=; b=Mk29gfP7ZeQsPek/ekbQIC2WuNTV4eRTbmAxvMAm+P9Qb2AXxQQGZfwW17rMRMfTcP KN+I0Oe93lPwbleUfH+lsY1PjwqRMy0O6jcgILCmGIknQ/9MDb+skShpRiiaH3tKYefJ kCZqQxQgpIeD2eYV/ev5x9CLvMJE0tzi92vLA=
Received: by 10.42.157.3 with SMTP id b3mr7104251icx.44.1318132675184; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 20:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.219.194 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMET5J4XVbrKR9zdHXN8LqhBYJ=psYMoSXBNFzwZVUkE0YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F259BF79-B3C9-4434-AAC4-9F84B8D9A0FA@laposte.net> <CAM+vMER2CBTpYOhcu63th7AJejCJ4sv0_GqeiZmwHVHEEeW1WA@mail.gmail.com> <0C2B5428-98D4-4F67-B18D-9ACA946A68E7@laposte.net> <CABv173VeFd5DVLm5XvX5+PTgW2biQpUCnW=Z7EXHj7EDG-5LUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM+vMERXwqJWobpUsk=Pq6OkubBSCc8QFdNsRgMSyzf+1e8SgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFUBMqVkMQ89tffeGcBT5mJpz56mrvabe0pjdiJ-ia7XfoVhYw@mail.gmail.com> <CABv173U4wOBYBjM+kaCfHM1ksNPSk1WW_JvMTf1Y1=b_-X=jrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM+vMETVf763VWLLCHy072NcHTi0v=cMOyjQ+u2HHa5SwiFF_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFUBMqX01bLG4Rkn=zvT9o4Q4UF3sGCqEGd7AD0aW-ZkC9AS6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAM+vMET5J4XVbrKR9zdHXN8LqhBYJ=psYMoSXBNFzwZVUkE0YA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:57:35 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfAA3ttXJ88kLQuNi8w1vT-Dpu5Pdv4S+O-=VHUwFGwAtHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba6135c2df07c204aed5ad62"
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation
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: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 03:57:56 -0000

Hi, Gang,

Please see my reply inline.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> As Ole said, "for the outside domain traffic" (Actually, I never argue
> that point for that case)
> Thereby, it's worth to be clarified whether need encoding whole IPv4
> address, as the below table
>
> +----------+-----------------+--------------------+
> |          |source address   | destination address|
> +----------+-----------------+--------------------+
> |  CE-CE   |      N/A        |        N/A         |
> +----------+-----------------+--------------------+
> |  CE-BR   |      N/A        |        Yes         |
> +----------+-----------------+--------------------+
>
>
> In case you need to embed the full IPv4 address for destination address in
CE-BR, why not define a unified address format for CE-CE model. I think it
would be easier to implement and easier to achieve further traffic
identification in the same way.

Best wishes

Qiong

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email