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

[Qiong <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jacni


>>   Qiong: My concern is specific for virtual interface implementation. If
> you implement a virtual interface(as most existing encapsulation approaches
> have adopted in CPE ), you still need to do routing within CE (from physical
> interface to virtual interface). In traditional encapsulation
> implementation, a specific routing entry can be assigned to help forward the
> traffic with a tunnel endpoint address. And all the following decapsulation
> things can be done in this virtual interface. I think this kind of
> implementation can be applied to translation as well, to make use of
> traditional routing and implementation translation functionality only on the
> virtual interface.
>
> I doubt whether the two can share the same interface by just switching
> between encapsulation/translation modes, maybe a separated one is needed for
> translation since the implementation is different.
>
>
> Agree that separated interfaces might be needed for different
implementation. As long as the traffic can still be differentiated via
routing, different functionality can be applied to different interfaces. So
I think we may need to focus on defining a flexible prefix for routing,
rather than bit extracting. But anyway, I do not think it would be a common
case that translation and encapsulation will be running simultaneous.

Best wishes

Qiong


> Cheers,
> Jacni
>
>
>  And since the first 64 bits will be same for both native traffic and
> translated traffic, the lower bits would be needed for internal routing.
> That's why I think unstable "max" PSID would make it difficult to construct
> internal routing table (not routing procedure from ISP to CE). But anyway,
> it is only restricted to this kind of implementation (determine the
> translated traffic by routing rather than bit extracting).
>
>  Hope it is clear now.
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Qiong
>
>