Re: [Softwires] MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology

Satoru Matsushima <> Tue, 07 February 2012 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBAE21F848C for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 04:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mp-bvph-P7DZ for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 04:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DCA21F859A for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 04:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werm10 with SMTP id m10so6129456wer.31 for <>; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:07:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Di41KP7oErWw6GF9XnUYtOTETkJ3VfEovlb8UeqUKtk=; b=waVWaf5SwJ46YtJFpzFSLPQ1SfgVkvBmXaGU/USb2D6ytZw2YzWyfSPmIPgp0Llqq4 BLk9fY3hVhbfzZvV3mcB8g2B3VqQe7QZS8m/ejHqd7nIoqXkvhYZIA8bQlVN9OTLWPcs RJi1LmKOpozqMnTYvWR8T9eJoT86OZd/2nbao=
Received: by with SMTP id b9mr8634995wej.23.1328616463600; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id hb10sm3256322wib.10.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Satoru Matsushima <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:07:40 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Despr=C3=A9s?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Softwires WG <>, Wojciech Dec <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:07:48 -0000

Hi Remi-san,

On 2012/02/07, at 11:13, Rémi Després wrote:

> Hello Ole, Tetsuya-san, Wojciech,
> In a use case described in the 4rd-U draft (sec 5.3), an ISP replaces its dual-stack routing by IPv6-only routing.
> For this, independently from the number of IPv4 prefixes it has to support, it uses only one mapping rule.
> (By replacing each IPv4 route by an equivalent IPv6 route, it ensures that all customers keep their IPv4 addresses.)

I don't think that it could work as you explained in that section. For example, the BR would need to check a received packet from a CE whether it has correct source address in mapping rule or not. It means that the BR must know all address mappings for CE between IPv4 addresses and IPv6 prefixes. Is it correct understanding? 

I think that operators who already deploy such dual-stack network is supposed that they have address mapping table, they can provision each CE individually, and also they are capable to distribute the default mapping rule since they should install it into the CEs. In that situation, what's the motivation of why the operator want to provision with only default mapping rule?


> For this to work, the 4rd-U draft has a bit that, in the hub&spoke case, differs between CE-to-BR and BR-to-CE directions. Thus, packets sent to a CE take different routes depending on whether sent by a CE or a BR.
> I don't see how the equivalent could work with the MAP documents you edited.
> Is it that such a use case is out of scope for MAP?
> Or did I miss something?
> Cheers,
> RD
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list