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

[Zhen Cao <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Qiong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi, Gang,
> Please see my reply inline.
>
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, GangChen <[e-mail]> 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

I think this is a different story. For the CE-BR communication, since
the destination node is not within the domain, we can't and do not
need to use the same mapping algorithm as well as the address format
for the destination address part.  The mapping only applies to the
source address part. That's what's discussed during the interim.

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen