IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com> Sun, 09 October 2011 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <maxpassion@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 2A53C21F8B37 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 G9i-KF32lyjH for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:10:03 -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 360EB21F8B10 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so7961372iab.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AYO6uUdh6BsKV+cMk5PgVfnn4un0pfuFLKMmVT7AKIQ=; b=lUc5xOCdR/R+ykTYcOJaEhvakMkZw/nvq8TdojV8kJ8k7K9YOPIBVGog0DuNdgPT14 6mNhD6PxfTmptGV//4+q8IEqKvdDq75LRL1NPeJDFLljeMfPJu+V0ik9yaDXNLKe1qzl 8k5xhFIy1d9IpaPmr/iJ5x5Osb6xcvuZS0nqQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.157.3 with SMTP id b3mr10659534icx.44.1318180165666; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.221.5 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAProHARGzsxK9rUtS3p5Rr04pfkL=A4XO-AgQsz3T=smEsGBDg@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> <CAH3bfAA3ttXJ88kLQuNi8w1vT-Dpu5Pdv4S+O-=VHUwFGwAtHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAProHARGzsxK9rUtS3p5Rr04pfkL=A4XO-AgQsz3T=smEsGBDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 01:09:25 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKcc6Add3j+Ugfk2qtw9yXxZxqwVsk=SFbPVim8mD+Shhvwxqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 17:10:04 -0000

2011/10/9, Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
> 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.

Agree.

Regards,
Dapeng Liu


> --
> Best regards,
> Zhen
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>


-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email