Re: [Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning
peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Sat, 22 May 2021 02:36 UTC
Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B7D3A0A73 for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxXqhHZEbEl8 for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DBB43A0A63 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2021 19:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id EC90CED17F6A9B891EDF; Sat, 22 May 2021 10:36:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 14M2al07079118; Sat, 22 May 2021 10:36:47 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Sat, 22 May 2021 10:36:47 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 10:36:47 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc60a86e3f542ad468
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202105221036477011965@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR11MB4081F1B20E7E8D54B25D2AC1C8299@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: BN6PR11MB4081F1B20E7E8D54B25D2AC1C8299@BN6PR11MB4081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: srcomp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 14M2al07079118
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/srcomp/M7lxpdJczrH974axaBtnTaBqV40>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning
X-BeenThere: srcomp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <srcomp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/srcomp/>
List-Post: <mailto:srcomp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 02:36:58 -0000
Hi Team, For this action, UIDSR is also YES. Regards, PSF 原始邮件 发件人：DarrenDukes(ddukes) 收件人：srcomp@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2021年05月21日 19:29 主 题 ：[Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning -- Srcomp mailing list Srcomp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp 3.3.3. Address Planning Description: Network operators require addressing plan flexibility, The compression mechanism MUST support flexible IPv6 address planning, it MUST support deployment by using GUA from different address blocks. +---------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+ | | CSID | CRH | VSID | UIDSR | +---------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+ | Flexible Address Planning | Yes | | | | +---------------------------+------+-----+------+-------+ Address Planning
- [Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning Darren Dukes (ddukes)
- Re: [Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning Ron Bonica
- Re: [Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning peng.shaofu
- Re: [Srcomp] 3.3.3. Address Planning Chengli (Cheng Li)