This is only require if you do not have a unique IPv4 address per node. What I'm suggesting is to allocate/derive a unique v4 address to each node. It can be done either by running DHCPv4 over the DS-lite tunnel, or defining an IPv4 allocation option for DHCPv6 or defining a mechanism to automatically derive a unique v4 address from the DHCPv6 assigned v6 address.
- Alain. On 11/24/09 11:29 AM, "Hui Deng" <[email protected]> wrote: > so DS-Lite need double translations of NAT44 to support host to host > communication? > > -Hui > > 2009/11/24 james woodyatt <[email protected]>: >> On Nov 23, 2009, at 08:53, Durand, Alain wrote: >>> >>> 4 could be a very straightforward extension of DS-lite. If you know the >>> common IPv6 prefix shared by adjacent nodes, you can directly tunnel to >>> them. >>> In practice, you¹ll have a default route to the AFTR and a subnet route for >>> the ³local² prefix. >> >> Also, to support the direct host-to-host tunneling, the DS-lite extension >> would need to allow for many DS-lite subscribers to share a single IPv4 >> private address realm. I think DS-lite currently requires that each IPv6 >> subscriber is isolated within their own IPv4 private address realm, and >> therefore a twice-NAT44 gateway is required for IPv4-only applications to >> communicate between DS-lite subscribers. >> >> >> -- >> james woodyatt <[email protected]> >> member of technical staff, communications engineering >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
