Exactly. There is no technical reason that forces a unified mapping, but it makes things simpler (which is always a good idea).
Jukka On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Roland Bless wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Narten wrote: > > Why exactly is it necessary to have the IPv4 and IPv6 number space be > > consistent? What is the technical requirement/benefit here? > > > > My own sense is that this would be "nice to have", but it is certainly > > not required, and I don't see that having the numbering space be strictly > > synchronized as providing compelling technical benefit. > > > > What am I missing? > > I would say: > If the numbers are aligned you don't need separate > mapping tables for IPv4 and IPv6. > The idea is that you map an NSLP ID, i.e. a an identifier > for a specific signaling application like QoS NSLP or > NAT/FW NSLP to an RAO value as demultiplexer. > In this case you would only > need one mapping table and not two different tables for > v4/v6. Technically you can have separate v4/v6 RAO tables, > but using only one would be easier to implement etc. > > Roland > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
