IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Softwires] [softwire]Basic Requirements for Customer Edge Routers

sunjingwen <sunjingwen@live.cn> Sun, 01 April 2012 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sunjingwen@live.cn>
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 97E8621F86F1 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.558
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
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 uAB40DmBY-ek for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s5.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s5.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C2621F86C6 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP460 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s5.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:05:13 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [59.64.255.250]
X-Originating-Email: [sunjingwen@live.cn]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP460447F08D87596DC498D04D14F0@phx.gbl>
Received: from COMPUTER ([59.64.255.250]) by BLU0-SMTP460.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:05:12 -0700
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 11:05:10 +0800
From: sunjingwen <sunjingwen@live.cn>
To: mark <mark@townsley.net>, ot <ot@cisco.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.88[cn]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart883405716811_=----"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2012 03:05:12.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[411AD5A0:01CD0FB4]
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: [Softwires] [softwire]Basic Requirements for Customer Edge Routers
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sunjingwen <sunjingwen@live.cn>
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, 01 Apr 2012 03:05:14 -0000

Dear authors,
I've read the draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02, and I have a question confused me very much.
 
In section 4.3, 
>In the case of DS-Lite and Native IPv4 configuration being present at the same time, 
>DS-Lite would be preferred as it uses IPv6 transport and Native IPv4 does not.
 
Do you mean if the CE receive user’s IPv4 packet, it will choose to use tunnel rather than IPv4?
But I think if use native IPv4 can also arrive the destination (IPv4 internet), the native IPv4 will more efficient than the tunnel, because it needn’t encapsulation and decapsulation.
 
Please correct me if there is any mistake~
 
     Thank you




Best regards!
sun jingwen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email