IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> Tue, 11 October 2011 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <satoru.matsushima@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 12D8B21F8C4F for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:40:04 -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 9xQdDwE-rjcI for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7D021F8C1A for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadb12 with SMTP id b12so6182685qad.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=WXGXerBD0jUJROxhN9CxQB3EylPBMuXFdvlZG9IF+pA=; b=DaImK4KgFJANkqJqMPNy/K4JJh6FBbqO2XgD4KrQ23YXjA+gWakSYTSpp2sD8v4WVo /+CO/F7c/0VKH4btWr8QwaRXJMdOtYjd8AlCeZcd7fUattwsY0FhmKih6zGR4QFfkIOQ 1WVT4NrYAWyjL2D6UIIaGRsj5051vAiqJV5aA=
Received: by 10.68.20.226 with SMTP id q2mr45083589pbe.115.1318340390068; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.54] (softbank221038132005.bbtec.net. [221.38.132.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ji3sm79404708pbc.2.2011.10.11.06.39.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFUBMqVNScO3RnhabHcLVAHwgdRNFOEZ2=4Dfy534mzfJ=ud5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:39:44 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9162B706-CCB4-4DED-B01C-9CB4D8C7706D@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> <CAFUBMqVNScO3RnhabHcLVAHwgdRNFOEZ2=4Dfy534mzfJ=ud5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
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: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:40:04 -0000

On 2011/10/09, at 13:31, Maoke wrote:

> ...
> +----------+-----------------+--------------------+
> |          |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.
> 
> 
> agree. 

I'd agree on that it could be appreciable for the hub and spoke scenario. I guess that the 'CE-CE' in the table indicates the mesh scenario.

cheers,
--satoru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email