Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
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. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Rémi Després [mailto:despres.r...@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
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:14, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@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.r...@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
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Després Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:23 AM To: mohamed.boucad...@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.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@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.r...@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 ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
hi Remi, On 11/3/2011 5:04 PM, Rémi Després wrote: 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. Right, and I have already mentioned that in my previous message, the prefix case can be inherently supported. I just said that in the context of IPv4 address shortage, it may be not reasonable. If the sharing ratio is unique, then it'll be easily to be calculated, some parameter is not required in the MAP Rule. And the simplicity can also mean straightforward to implementers and addressing planners, which IMHO is important for the solution to be accepted easily in practice. Cheers, Jacni Maybe you can be more specific on your concern. Cheers, RD ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 address mapping?
hi, On 11/3/2011 5:24 PM, Rémi Després wrote: Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:04, Ole Troan a écrit : ... 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. can you clarify why this? I don't understand why IPv4 routing has to be maintained just because there is a MAP domain with full IPv4 addresses (or a rule for full IPv4 addresses)? I didn't say that. IF the address mapping can't assign IPv4 prefixes to CEs, AND IF an ISP has to support some users needing IPv4 prefixes, it needs a tool to do it. I supposed that maintaining IPv4 routing was the easiest way to do it. If you have a better alternative, what would it be? If the customer is likely to pay that much for a prefix, I guess these won't be a problem any more. For example, just setup a dedicated tunnel and add a piece of route for them. Cheers, Jacni As said to Med, if I misunderstood Jacni's idea, this debate can be closed. Cheers, RD ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
