2011/11/7, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Ole,
1. Checksum neutrality being an open question, it is relevant here.
2. It is useful AFAIK to distinguish CE addresses from BR addresses.
The best proposal I know so far is as follows (with CNP = Checksum
neutrality preserver)
CE
1. Checksum neutrality being an open question, it is relevant here.
2. It is useful AFAIK to distinguish CE addresses from BR addresses.
The best proposal I know so far is as follows (with CNP = Checksum
neutrality preserver)
CE ADDRESS
- - - - - - IPv6 Unformatted address (104 bits)
Le 8 nov. 2011 à 10:17, Ole Troan a écrit :
1. Checksum neutrality being an open question, it is relevant here.
2. It is useful AFAIK to distinguish CE addresses from BR addresses.
The best proposal I know so far is as follows (with CNP = Checksum
neutrality preserver)
CE ADDRESS
- -
Le 8 nov. 2011 à 11:35, Mark Townsley a écrit :
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
- Talking with Mark townsley, I got the understanding that this wasn't a
real problem, at least with IOS.
= Clarifying this point would IMHO be useful.
Our tunnel code typically
the discussions we have had in the design team and on the softwires mailing
list reflect that many of us have different views on what a stateless IPv4 over
IPv6 solution should look like. there is an astounding amount of innovation in
this space; for every problem found there are solutions
Hi Alain and Yong,
Could you please assign 10min slot for 4rd encapsulation draft
(draft-murakami-softwire-4rd)?
Thanks,
Tetsuya Murakami
On 2011/11/04, at 5:26, Alain Durand wrote:
If you want to present during the Softwire meetings in Taipei and you have
not yet sent me or Yong a request
I am still unclear about this:
Why do we require multiple mapping rules? How does it support multiple IPv4
subnets. End User IPv6 prefix is generated from the Rule IPv6 Prefix + EA bits.
So how does the CE know which Rule to use to generate this.
Thanks,
Tina
From: Ole Troan o...@cisco.com
