Hi all,
According to the discussion last Friday, there should be some text describing
the characteristics of lw4o6 and map-e with cross-referece, and the text should
be the same (or almost the same).
The two points that are requested to be in the text:
* MAP-E achieves aggregated rules
*
Hi Ole,
OK, hopefully a final cut of the wording.
Cheers,
Ian
-
In lw4o6, a number of lw4o6 specific configuration parameters must be
provisioned to the lwB4. These are:
o IPv6 Address for the lwAFTR
o IPv4 External (Public) Address for NAPT44
o Restricted port-set to use for NAPT44
Hi Qi,
thanks, but I'd rather stick with the text that we proposed and (lengthily)
discussed at the meeting, i.e.:
Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
architecture only, where the lwAFTR maintains (softwire) state for each
subscriber. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
Hi Woj,
Just for context, the ‘complete independence’ wording was taken from the
map-dhcp draft (section 3). The hope was that this wouldn’t be a contentious
phrase because of that.
Cheers,
Ian
From: Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.commailto:wdec.i...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, 12 March 2014
On 12 March 2014 10:32, ian.far...@telekom.de wrote:
Hi Woj,
Just for context, the 'complete independence' wording was taken from the
map-dhcp draft (section 3). The hope was that this wouldn't be a
contentious phrase because of that.
Well, but given that it's not technically accurate it
Hi Woj,
Technically, that statement is accurate, for there is no IPv4 address and port
set embedded in the IPv6 prefix in lw4over6, no matter what type of
provisioning methods (dhcpv6/dhcpv4ov6/pcp) is used.
Best Regards,
Qi
On 2014-3-12, at 下午5:25, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi Qi,
thanks,
Hi Woj,
The text in Qi's proposal is explicit about what is meant by complete
independence between IPv4 and IPv6 addressing: the IPv6 prefix does not embed
an IPv4 address and/or port set). The text is about IPv6 prefix assigned to
the CPE; that prefix does not embed an IPv4 address nor a port
Hi Woj,
On 2014-3-12, at 下午5:50, Wojciech Dec wrote:
On 12 March 2014 10:32, ian.far...@telekom.de wrote:
Hi Woj,
Just for context, the ‘complete independence’ wording was taken from the
map-dhcp draft (section 3). The hope was that this wouldn’t be a contentious
phrase because of
Hi Qi,
On 12 March 2014 11:23, Qi Sun sunqi.csnet@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Woj,
Technically, that statement is accurate, for there is no IPv4 address and
port set embedded in the IPv6 prefix in lw4over6, no matter what type of
provisioning methods (dhcpv6/dhcpv4ov6/pcp) is used.
Not on
Well, yeah, so the following text should do:
Both solutions allow for IPv6 prefix independence, i.e.the IPv6 prefix does
not embed an IPv4 address and/or port set
?
Cheers,
Wojciech.
On 12 March 2014 11:27, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Woj,
The text in Qi's proposal is explicit
I don¹t understand his point. Let¹s put the 1:1 aside, MAP-E requires IPv4
rule to algorithmically build the CE IPv6 prefix. In lw4o6 Section 5.1, we
simple put the v4 in the IID. Isn¹t it obviously there is no v4/v6
dependency? What Woj tries to argue? I lost. Can somebody explain to me
please?
Let me try again:
Basic fact: IPv6 address is 128 bits.
If you put in the IPv4 address in the IID, then it becomes part of the 128
bit IPv6 address. Claiming that there is complete independence (no linkage)
between the IPv4 addresses and IPv6 address is then not correct. If you see
it another
Hi folks,
We've uploaded the minutes for softwire session.
If you have any comments or corrections, please let us know by March 21.
Many thanks to Ole Troan for taking the notes and Cong Liu for updating it.
Yong Suresh
___
Softwires mailing list
Dear all,
I read the following from the minutes:
Erik Kline: What is the relationship between this client prefix attribute and
the information that would be handed to the client in a DHCPv6 PD?
Suresh: Clarifying question.
Qi: It is for the AFTR to restrict how many translation entries can be
14 matches
Mail list logo
