Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Thu, 03 November 2011 20:48 UTC
Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.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 99BA921F9DBE for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.563, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 meF1hDAKm9d7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184F1F0C35 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LU300B60R4D8Z@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:48:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LU300I3ZR4DZZ@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:48:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AET11472; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:47:49 +0800
Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:47:42 +0800
Received: from SZXEML526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.58]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:47:40 +0800
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:47:39 +0000
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <E5F4DC211930DB488C0563E1C93FB748169C78C3@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.114]
To: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Message-id: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1B6A71@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
Thread-index: AQHMmmnTAMYp4E7vx0q75RKsb17Eqg==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1B6818@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <E5F4DC211930DB488C0563E1C93FB748169C78C3@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:48:16 -0000
As far as I understood, keeping IPv4 prefix in the mapping facilitated the use of IPv4 subnets, am I interpreting it right? Regards, Tina -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Després Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:23 AM To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Cc: Softwires WG; Ole Troan Subject: Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping? Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:14, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> a écrit : > Hi Rémi, all, > > Since there is only an excerpt of e-mails, I lost the context. > > Could you please clarify what is the issue discussed here? Thanks. Sure. Right or wrong, I understood that what Jacni suggested is that the v4/v6 address mapping would be able to assign full IPv4 addresses to CEs, but no longer IPv4 prefixes. If I misunderstood, end of this subject for me. Otherwise, I argue that keeping IPv4-prefix support isn't difficult. Hope it clarifies. Cheers, RD > > Cheers, > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Rémi Després [mailto:despres.remi@laposte.net] >> Envoyé : jeudi 3 novembre 2011 10:05 >> À : Jacni Qin >> Cc : Alain Durand; Ole Troan; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; >> Satoru Matsushima; Softwires WG >> Objet : Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 >> address mapping? >> >> >> Le 3 nov. 2011 à 09:50, Jacni Qin a écrit : >>>>> if the MAP just covers "shared address with one single >> sharing ratio for one domain", >>>>> the design will be greatly simplified? >>>> Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, >> just to serve the few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, >> seems to me a step backward. >>>> >>>> Besides, I have serious doubts about "greatly simplified". >>> I mean for the design of the address/port mapping >> algorithm, not the transport mechanism. >> >> Yes, but I don't see the great simplification of the algorithm. >> Keeping it general enough to support IPv4 prefixes is AFAIK >> easy. It doesn't prevent deployments where, IPv4 prefixes >> being not supported, fields can be at places that may be >> found more convenient. >> >> Maybe you can be more specific on your concern. >> >> Cheers, >> RD >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires