IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

"Yuchi Chen" <chenycmx@gmail.com> Thu, 06 March 2014 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <chenycmx@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CCD1A0083 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CPZYdccyCpG5 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2092B1A00EC for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id uo5so2712182pbc.32 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:56:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:reply-to:subject:references:mime-version:message-id :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qzw0WyE74Sc+qHRO0IXB4xvQlTEB5XL5g6w01mQHdII=; b=S9sVXUrCl9dC3UV5DaCtoDtDbpQnydStccMDJSyFhNk8Zw4XY6mUDUvKCJkc3TzBQ4 DIgQvKNZWsXXp/icbrEPN7JthSrIYnr8594Iu2EnUciYT7l/eMkm2vghqzofMvLrG3lw ecBQ7+tklCiIY05k17wEEoQcO1PWW3m5tFG2tyaQEPOoPsWDwj0zVPvIBBdyA/6LCk/c 4YKAxAlzsmmB80n+YUD+oRC+t2Cgy1qFndju1oT5bmjZd7Y3SpApc2pBvL1RE/ygeTGe 1cWW/W73QQLu3yeHi+q51FCakbzBUvoczdeVCcynYUnYnkBhehRImNFsX4KbWv6ubY/T SIfg==
X-Received: by 10.68.250.3 with SMTP id yy3mr15072392pbc.56.1394117802277; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netlab-PC ([59.64.255.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yx3sm20701448pbb.6.2014.03.06.06.56.37 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 22:56:37 +0800
From: Yuchi Chen <chenycmx@gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <20140211075445.17615.61208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FD878467-904B-4441-95B4-11D4461A612E@employees.org> <CF237FDE.AACEB%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4jOBfvnqCV4UH8qt0HA5zZ-35f+q5ZepzjnwGX5_Oj9Gg@mail.gmail.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2CDB8ED2@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CAFFjW4iP2KqNJFtJPr5rp0tzRwM5TPjaqiSP5r13JqbX46ao7w@mail.gmail.com> <CD1D4FF6-9509-43B4-AFC4-4F1AF99D0C4D@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4ibkj_xpTuXrbYjxkdxD=+qNzapCGPHJwXsZ-k0ZvGg-g@mail.gmail.com> <CF335888.AE89D%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4hv5WBiqyw9jM+ZoLMGR5k49pjKXG0epnhrsOGoBBKMYA@mail.gmail.com> <78CE37BA-11FB-4AE4-9D49-A3053616A31A@gmx.com> <53173611.5070208@viagenie.ca> <4255E91E-B1F0-4FE0-9A86-171922C7BC43@gmx.com> <6BE4C1C1-17D6-44B6-A9FC-F270D29AA0B0@employees.org> <F946C230-B91C-4463-823B-C3FB3B0577F2@gmx.com>, <98DA6B17-C07E-40B8-AABE-8A4D0D5F687A@employees.org> <2014030615595650398421@gmail.com>, <BFEB5F55-C6F1-4173-BC39-62ECC91E41BB@employees.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: B8BE701D-A1E8-4C9E-9B31-322F20CBF998
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2014030622563239245134@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/fMygmMJFkrBluTmu1eQw_ZH7WXM
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: chenycmx <chenycmx@gmail.com>
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, 06 Mar 2014 14:56:47 -0000

Hi Ole,

I agree that we should choose the better algorithm. Provisioning a prefix seems can introduce more flexibility. 

I don't agree that we should try to unify lwB4 and MAP-E CE. 

Regards,
--------------
Yuchi

On 2014-03-06, 21:10, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>Yuchi,
>
>> IMHO doing LPM with the lwAFTR's address is more straightforward than with a "Domain v6 prefix".
>> 
>> In addition, I don't see why Ian's proposal cannot cover the case you mentioned, the case in which an address out of the prefix domain can be chosen as the tunnel endpoint address. If lwB4 has been provisioned with such an address, and if this address does have a LPM with lwAFTR's address, lwB4 can still use it as the tunnel endpoint address. Please correct me if I'm missing anything.
>
>there are two issues here.
>
>1) in the unified CPE context. is there a benefit in having the same algorithm to choose the CE tunnel endpoint address?
>    are the requirements different?
>2) pick the right mechanism for tunnel end point determination. in your above scheme you do not have the same flexibility as you have with a provisioned prefix selector 
>

>I though we had covered one in previous discussions, but there might be something I've missed.
>are we in agreement on this point? that it is beneficial to use the same mechanism for tunnel endpoint address determination on the CE.
>

>cheers,
>Ole
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email