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

[Zhen Cao <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, GangChen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello Maoke,
>
> Please see my reply inline.
>
> 2011/10/8, Maoke <[e-mail]>:
>>> > Yes, if ISP has /32 IPv6 address, then how to embed 32 bits IPv4 address
>>> and
>>> > PSID in the first 64 bits?
>>> >
>>> 4v6 translation doesn’t need to embed whole 32 bits IPv4 address
>>> according to the algorithm. Please take look EA-bits usage in
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-01 for more
>>> details
>>>
>>>
>> i suppose Ole and Congxiao have clarified this point, right? for the double
>> translation, full ipv4 address is needed.
>
> 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         |
> +----------+-----------------+--------------------+
>

I like this matrix, very clear for discussion and should serve as the
basis for any arguments regarding the reasons for our choice.

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen